Criminal appeal challenging conviction and sentence for voluntary causing hurt under Section 325 IPC. High Court affirmed conviction but with reduced sentence.
Sentence reduced to period undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-; appellant released if not required in other case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved on 29-10-2018 Delivered on 14-11-2018 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1036/2002
(Arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 169-2002 passed by the Special Judge, constituted under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Raipur in Special Case No. 61/2000)
Pushkar Chaikrawarti, aged about 24 years, S/o. Thukel Ram Chakrawarti, R/o. Village Koundkera, PS Gariyaband, Distt. Raipur (CG)
---- Appellant
-Versus-
State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, P.S. Gariyaband, Distt. Raipur (CG)
---- Respondent
For appellant : Ms. Shriya Mishra, Adv. For State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Swarnkar, PL.
Hon'ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge CAV JUDGMENT
2
at about 5.30 pm. He was talking with co-accused Manohar. At that time, the appellant, co-accused Umashankar and Kajuram reached there. Appellant and co-accused Umashankar beat him by hands and legs. Appellant twisted his right hand. He lodged FIR on very day in police station Gariyaband at about 20.15 hour. After completing the investigation a charge sheet was filed against them. Trial Court framed charges against appellant and co-accused Umashankar under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCST Act, Section 325 read with Section 34, IPC; against co-accused Kajuram under Section 3(1)(x), SCST Act, Section 109 read with Section 325, IPC; against co-accused Manohar under Section 3(1) (x) of the SCST Act. After conclusion of the trial, Trial Court acquitted them of Section 3(1)(x), SCST Act; co-accused Umashankar of the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34, IPC; coaccused Kajuram of the offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 325 of IPC. However, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.
3
by the prosecution. He supported the aforesaid conviction and sentence and submitted that no interference is called for by this Court.
4
that appellant had beaten him by hand. He had twisted his right hand.
5
6
Thus, this Court believes on them.
7
Sd/(Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge
Pathak/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction of the appellant for voluntarily causing hurt under Section 325 IPC be sustained against the challenge that evidence was not appreciated.
Whether the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed by the trial court require modification in view of the lapse of 18 years.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manjappa -v- State of KarnatakaReferred¶50
Manjappa -v- State of Karnataka [(2007) 6 SCC 231] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pushkar Chaikrawarti
State of Chhattisgarh
Sharad Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
