Dismissed

Jamuna Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Sept 2015CRR/476/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision under Sections 397/398 CrPC challenged an appellate order upholding conviction for Sections 341, 323, and 504 IPC. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact based on eyewitnesses and admitted evidence, dismissing the submission that lack of issuance of receipt or missing medical proof warrants quashing.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed; the conviction and sentence were maintained quashing.

Jamuna Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Revision No.476 of 2002

¶5

Jamuna Bai w/o Jagdish Sahu aged 33 (Thiny three) years, an Assist. Teacher, resident of^village Deradih, Police Station Kasdoi, District ‘Raipur (CG)

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Chhattlsgarh thrQugh (Police^{StationKasdol)Collector} Raipur District Raipur (CG) ---Non-applicant .i‘^. For Applicant T , ‘: A L *Mr;Jana’k’Ram.V'erima Advocate For Non applicant : Mr. O.P.Sahu, Goverri‘zmevocatetAd ' £ ‘ Hon’ble ShriJustice Sanjay K. Agr 03/09/201 5 1. invoking the r d iction of this Court under Section 397 read with Se the CrPC, the applicant herein has ’st called in q io. impugned judg m .82002 passed by the 15‘ Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazaar in Criminal Appeal No.107/2002 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has partly^set aside the sentence awarded for offence under Section‘504 of the IPC while maintaining the conviction and sentence of offence under Sections 341 and 323 of the IPC awarding fine of Rs.500/— for offence under Section 504 of the IPC.

¶9

In a charge-sheet filed by the Station House Officer, Kasdol, the applicant herein was prosecuted for offence under Sections 3413, 323 and 504 of the IPC on the charges that on 1.3.1995 she wrongfully conhned complainant Sarpanch Ghanshyam

Page 1 of 4

/<%D‘

Prasad Dewangan, caused hurt and and also caused intentional assault to him and thereby committed the aforeaid offence.

¶14

Before the trial Court, the applicant abjured the guilt and entered into defence. The prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses and exhibited five documents whereas, the defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. The trial Gourt after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence convicted the applicant under Sections

¶15

«f :IP‘C‘and

¶16

341‘, 32.3,:and‘504 of the sentenced tine of Rs.200/— ‘der

¶17

, £Under Section 341 of the IPC, fine of Rs.3 0 _ n Section 323 of the IPC° an d Ol- and sentence: s ing of the ~. Court.

¶18

On appeal being y the applicant, the appellate Court has maintained under Sections 341 and 323 ofthe IPC, but set as ion for offence under Section 504 of the IPC and only impose‘dwRs.500/- as fine.

¶19

Against the said order, the instant revision has been filed by the applicant.

¶20

Mr. Janak Ram Verma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, would submit that: conviction of the applicant is bad and unsustinable in law as the complainant did not issue any receipt for‘application form, which the applicant applied and submitted for the post of Teacher, which she demanded and therefore, her entire career ruined. So far as hurt is concenred, it is not supported by medical evidence and she only offered sindoor andbangles to the complainant, but it was not actually

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

@ 3

¶23

accepted by the complainant,^therefore,no question^ofconviction under Section 504 of the^IPC is made out, therefore, convictioⁿ and sentence awarded deserve^{tobesetaside.}

¶24

;“v

¶25

Per contra, Mr. Om Prakash Sahu, Iearned counsei for the State/non-appiicant, would submit that the concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts^{belowarebasedontestimoniesof} eyewitnesses Ghanaram‘(PW-2), Dubraj Singh (PW-3)^and Jai Prakash (PW-4) andas such,^{concurrentfindingrecordedbytwo} $i‘ Courts belowwarranting nointerference^{andtherefore,} revision ‘ £ deserves^{tobedismised.}

¶26

¶27

,‘8. I have hea‘rd re o r the parties an d“ i dered their J rival submissi , n and gone through the original records with utm‘ ection. 9. The trial Co u t y recorded the finding based on testimonies of; x W-2), Dubraj Singh (PW-3).and Jai Prakash (PW-4)‘that‘the‘appiicant^{didnotallowthecomplainant} to go on his‘way and^{wrongfullyconfinedhimdemandingreceipt} of the application, claiming to be submitted by her for appointment. It has been further recorded that the applicant slapped him by her footwear, by which he suffered contusion, which he claimed pain in the^{medicalreportandthecomplainant} being a Sarpanch offering such objectionable material is an offence under Section 504^oftheIPC. In the apeal, the appellate Court has affirmed the Said finding holding it is based on

evidence.

Page 3 of4

After hearing Iearhed counsel for the parties, after going through the record and after going through the testimonies of Ghanaram (PW-2),^DubrajSingh (PW-3) and Jai Prakash (PW-4), testimony of the complainant, seizure of footwear, broken bangles and sindoor from the police, concurrent finding recorded by two Courts below are based on evidence available on record. l do not tind any illegality. or peryersity in the finding recorded by two Courts below. So far as the sentnece is concerend, the appellate V’Court has":Lalready set asideilthejail sentence awarded to the ' : applicant^i.e. till rising of the Court and has d uced the fine 4 . which is also dfair.

¶35

Consequently, t i ng without substance is liable to and is according l

¶36

Sd/sanjay K. AgraWal Judge

¶37

¶38

Page 4 of 4

Jamuna Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamuna Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemlal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Narad Shrivas Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Neera Bai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

C.R.kamlesh Vs Smt.kunti Kamlesh And Ors.

Smt.kunti Kamlesh And Ors. Vs C.r.kamlesh

Kamta Prasad Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh