Disposed

Tarachand Rathor and Others v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Jul 2019CRA/620/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed compounding of compoundable offences under Sections 320 CrPC for certain charges involving unlawful assembly and rioting. Convictions for non-compoundable offences were upheld, but the court granted benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to all appellants, including government servants.

What did the court decide?

Appellants acquitted of compoundable charges; convictions for non-compoundable offences upheld; benefit of probation and removal of disqualification granted to all appellants.

Tarachand Rathor and Others Vs State Of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 611 of 2017

¶5

Jagdish Prasad S/o Bhukauram, Aged About 65 Years

¶6

Santosh Alias Fundara Nankidau Rathore, Aged About 41 Years

¶7

Chatur Singh Alias Talli S/o Bhukauram, Aged About 53 Years

¶8

Ghanshyam S/o Ramoprasad Rathore, Aged About 48 Years

¶9

Manmohan S/o Rathram Rathore, Aged About 63 Years

¶10

Radheshyam S/o Ramji Rathore, Aged About 50 Years

¶11

Liladhar S/o Ghasiram Rathore, Aged About 38 Years

¶12

Ashok Kumar S/o Nankidau Rathore, Aged About 43 Years

¶13

Dhananjay Singh S/o Ghasiram Rathore, Aged About 30 Years

¶14

10.Rameshwar S/o Dharam Singh Rathore, Aged About 57 Years

¶15

11.Laakhan S/o Jagdish Rathore, Aged About 36 Years,

¶16

12.Rajesh S/o Ghasiram Rathore, Aged About 35 Years

¶17

13.Ganesh Jayaswal S/o Raghunath Jayaswal, Aged About 32 Years

¶18

14.Vishal S/o Nankidau Rathore, Aged About 32 Years

¶19

15.Trilochan S/o Dharam Singh Rathore, Aged About 42 Years

¶20

16.Suraj S/o Maha Singh Rathore, Aged About 32 Years

¶21

17.Kamal Rathore S/o Ramo Rathore, Aged About 42 Years

¶22

18.Digambar S/o Dharam Singh Rathore, Aged About 46 Years

¶23

19.Devdhar Rathore S/o Nankidau Rathore, Aged About 37 Years

¶24

20.Pradeep Rathore S/o Maha Singh Rathore, Aged About 30 Years

¶25

21.Ramgopal Alias Ramu S/o Manmohan Rathore, Aged About 32 Years

¶26

22.Rakesh Kumar S/o Shankerlal Rathore, Aged About 43 Years

¶27

23.Dhamrudhar S/o Ghajju Rathore Aged About 56 Years

¶28

¶29

All are R/o Village Sapia, Thana Dhabara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶30

----Appellants

¶31

Versus

¶32

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Dhabara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶33

---- Respondent

¶34

Present :

¶35

For Appellants : Shri Hari Agrawal & Shri M.L. Saket Advocates.

¶36

For Respondent/State : Shri Santosh Bharat and Smt. Madhunisha Singh, Panel Lawyers.

¶37

CRA No. 597 of 2017

¶38

Vijay S/o Jeetram Rathore, Aged About 33 Years

¶39

Santosh S/o Chhatram Yadav, Aged About 30 Years

¶40

Goverdhan Gore S/o Lal Kumar Satnami, Aged About 43 Years

¶41

Jai Singh S/o Devprasad Yadav, Aged About 38 Years

¶42

Shyam Lal Yadav S/o Chamrulal Yadav, Aged About 42 Years

¶43

Bhayaram Yadav S/o Gajadhar Yadav, Aged About 55 Years

¶44

Arun Rathore S/o Jeetram Rathore, Aged About 37 Years

¶45

Deshram S/o Manhar, Aged About 58 Years

¶46

Chhatram Yadav S/o Chamru Yadav Aged About 60 Years

¶47

All are R/o Village Sapiya, Police Station Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶48

----Appellants

¶49

Versus

¶50

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

Present :

For Appellants : Shri D.K. Singh and Shri K.K. Dewangan, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Shri Santosh Bharat and Smt. Madhunisha Singh, Panel Lawyers.

¶55

CRMP No. 1062 of 2017

¶56

Santosh Kumar Rathore S/o Ramnath Rathore, Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 20, Village Sapiya, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶57

---- Appellant/victim

¶58

Versus

¶59

Jagdish Prasad S/o Bhukhu Ram, Aged About 65 Years

¶60

Santosh @ Fundra, S/o Nankidau Rathore, Aged About 41 Years

¶61

Chatur Singh @ Tali S/o Bhukhu Ram, Aged About 53 Years

¶62

Ghanshyam S/o Ramo Prasad Rathore, Aged About 48 Years

¶63

Manmohan S/o Rathram Rathore, Aged About 63 Years

¶64

Radheshyam S/o Ramjee Rathore, Aged About 50 Years

¶65

Leeladhar S/o Ghasiram Rathore, Aged About 38 Years

¶66

Ashok Kumar S/o Nankidau Rathore, Aged About 43 Years

¶67

Dhananjay Singh S/o Ghasiram Rathore, Aged About 30 Years 10.Rameshwar S/o Dharam Singh Rathore Aged About 57 Years

¶68

11.Lakhan S/o Jagdish Rathore, Aged About 36 Years

¶69

12.Rajesh S/o Ghasiram Rathore, Aged About 35 years,

¶70

13.Ganesh Jaiswal S/o Ragunath Jaiswal, Aged About 32 Years

¶71

14.Vishal S/o Nankidau Rathore, Aged About 32 Years

¶72

15.Trilochan S/o Dharam Singh Rathore, Aged About 42 Years

¶73

16.Suraj S/o Maha Singh Rathore, Aged About 32 Years

¶74

17.Kamal Rathore S/o Ramo Rathore, Aged About 42 Years

¶75

¶76

18.Digambar S/o Dharam Singh Rathore Aged About 46 Years

¶77

19.Devdhar Rathore S/o Nankidau Rathore, Aged About 37 Years

¶78

20.Pradeep Rathore S/o Maha Singh Rathore, Aged About 30 Years

¶79

21.Ramgopal @ Ramu S/o Manmohan Rathore Aged About 32 Years

¶80

22.Rakesh Kumar S/o Shankar Lal Rathore, Aged About 43 Years

¶81

23.Damrudhar S/o Gajju Rathore Aged About 56 Years

¶82

All are R/o Village Sapiya, Police Station Dabra, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶83

24.State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Dabra, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶84

---- Respondents

¶85

Present :

¶86

For Appellant	:	Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 to 23	:	Shri Hari Agrawal & Shri M.L. Saket Advocates.
For Respondent No.24/State	:	Shri Santosh Bharat and Smt. Madhunisha Singh, Panel Lawyers.

¶87

CRA No. 620 of 2017

¶88

Tarachand Rathor, S/o Ramnath Rathor, aged about 53 years,

¶89

Ajay S/o Shri Dev Prasad Rathor, aged about 36 years,

¶90

Santosh S/o Shri Ramnath Rathor, aged about 45 years,

¶91

Satish S/o Shri Khemchant Rathor, aged about 32 years,

¶92

Chitrapal Rathor S/o Shri Tarachand Rathor, aged about 29 years,

¶93

Surendra Rathor S/o Shri Khemchand Rathor, aged about 33 years,

¶94

Jagmohan @ Ashok Rathor S/o Shri Ramnath Rathor, aged about 52 years,

¶95

¶96

Indrapal @ Sunil Rathor S/o Shri Tarachand Rathor, Aged about 32 years,

¶97

All R/o Village Sipiya, P.S. Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G.

¶98

--Appellants

¶99

Versus

¶100

State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Distt. JanjgirChampa (CG)

¶101

-- Respondent

¶102

For Respective Appellants : Shri Manish Sharma and Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Shri Santosh Bharat and Smt. Madhunisha Singh, Panel Lawyers.

¶103

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya

¶104

Judgment on Board by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶105

22/07/2019

¶106

Criminal Appeal No.611 of 2017 has been preferred by 23 accused persons out of total 25 accused persons who were initially charge sheeted. One accused namely Bajrang, son of Jagdish Rathore, having died during trial, the case against him stood abated and another accused namely Dileshwar, son of Lokram is absconding. These appellants have been convicted for committing offences under Sections 147, 148, 452/149, 324/149 and 427/149 of IPC on the allegation of forming unlawful assembly, committing house trespass and causing grievous hurt to several injured persons. For committing the crime they had committed house trespass by illegally and forcibly entering the

¶107

¶108

house of complainant Santosh Rathore and Khemchand.

¶109

CRMP No.1062 of 2017 has been filed by complainant Santosh Kumar Rathore challenging acquittal of the above accused persons of the offences under Section 307/149, 294 and 506 Part-II of IPC.

¶110

In the other set of two criminal appeals bearing No. 597 and 620 of 2017 appellants Vijay & 8 others and Tarachand & 7 others respectively have called in question their conviction under Sections 147, 148, 452/149, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC. In this offence the accused persons had entered into the house of Jagdish Prasad who is also an accused and convicted by the trial Court against which he has filed CRA No. 611 of 2017.

¶111

The accused/appellants as well as complainants of both the offences are present today before this Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. They have appeared in support of their applications under Section 320 CrPC for compounding the offences. Both the applications are duly supported by the affidavits of the respective complainant and injured persons. The applications should have been signed also by all the appellants in the respective appeals. Since about more than 40 persons are involved and most of them were present before this Court, we had permitted the respective appellants to put their signatures on the applications when these matters were taken on 17.07.2019. However, final orders could not be passed on that date for the reason that three appellants/accused and the victims were not present. Today, these five persons i.e. appellants/accused and two victims are present before this Court.

¶112

¶113

Let signatures of these appellants & victims be also obtained on the respective applications wherever needed.

¶114

In CRA Nos.611/2017 and CRMP No.1062/2017, the offence under Section 427 is compoundable, therefore, the prayer for compounding of the said offence is allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 427 of IPC. The application under Section 320 of CrPC filed in CRA No.611/2017 is allowed to the above extent. The remaining offences under Sections 148, 452 and 324 read with 149 of IPC being not compoundable, the prayer for compounding the said offence is rejected. The appeal in respect of the said offence shall be dealt with in the later part of this judgment.

¶115

In CRA No. 597 of 2017 and 620 of 2017, the offence under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC being compoundable, the parties are permitted to compound the said offence and consequently, the applications filed in these appeals under Section 320 of CrPC is allowed to the said extent and the appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 325 read with Section 149 of IPC. The remaining conviction in these two appeals shall be dealt with in the later part of this judgment.

¶116

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have heard them on merits.

¶117

The incident in both the matters happened at about 10-11 am on 01.02.2010 after declaration of result of Panchayat Election wherein Ganeshi Bai wife of Jagdish Rathore and Bhuvneshwari had contested the election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sapiya. Ganeshi Bai was declared elected and her victory

¶118

¶119

procession was carried out in the village. During this procession, the supporters of Jagdish Rathore entered the house of Khemchand and committed the offence using club, piped knife (Gupti), sword, spear etc. Similarly, the other set of accused in CRA Nos. 597 and 620 of 2017 forcibly entered the house of Chatur Singh after forming unlawful assembly and committed rioting and Marpeet by using almost same set of weapons.

¶120

Having seen the evidence in both the matters, we are satisfied that there is abundance of evidence against the accused persons who had formed unlawful assembly, committed house trespass and caused injuries by means of club, piped knife (Gupti), sword, spear etc. to different injured persons. The injuries were in the nature of lacerated wound and incised wound in CRA No.611 of 2017 whereas the injuries to the injured persons of CRA No.597 and 620 of 2017 were not caused by any weapon nor were grievous in nature. Conviction in all these appeals for other offences except those compounded, are therefore, upheld.

¶121

10.There are several accused persons in both the matters who are government servants. They are appellants Ghanshayam Prasad, Chatur Singh, Digambar, Trilochan and Suraj Singh in CRA No.611 of 2017. Similarly, appellants Arun Kumar Rathore & Vijay in CRA No. 597 of 2017 and Tarachand Rathore in CRA No.620 of 2017 are government servants. Some of theses appellants who are government servant, have remained in jail whereas others have not remained in jail even for a single day. However, we are presently considering the sentence to be imposed upon the appellants and whether they can be given benefit of Probation

¶122

¶123

of Offenders Act so that their conviction may not affect their government service.

¶124

11.Having anxiously considered the genesis of the incident and for the fact that on the day when Panchayat Election takes place in a village, the atmosphere always remains surcharged and people keep on fighting for petty and trivial reasons which at times involves all the members of the family including the lady members as well as government servants, as also for the reason that all the appellants are first offenders having no criminal antecedent, we are inclined to exercise our powers under Sections 3, 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Therefore, while maintaining their conviction for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324 and 427 read with 149 of IPC in CRA No.611 of 2017 and under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 325 read with Section 149 IPC in CRA No.597 of 2017 and 620 of 2017, they are given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Accordingly, instead of sentencing them, they are directed to be released on each of them submitting a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- for maintaining peace and tranquility for a period of two years. Such bond shall be submitted before the trial Court within a period of eight weeks.

¶125

12.Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short “the Act, 1958”) confers power on the Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct whereas Section 12 empowers the Court to direct removal of disqualification attaching the conviction. As has been stated by us infra about the genesis of offence and for the fact that judgment of conviction against the

¶126

¶127

appellants, who are government servants, may disqualify them to hold government service in future, we hereby direct, in exercise of our power under Section 12 of Act, 1958, that such appellants in either of the appeals who are government servants shall not be affected by their conviction so as to suffer any disqualification in their employment. This power we have exercised keeping in view the fact that none of the offences alleged against the appellants attract punishment of death sentence or life imprisonment.

¶128

13.In the result, all the appeals and CRMP stand disposed of in the

¶129

above terms.

¶130

Sd/Sd/- (Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Gautam Chourdiya) Judge Judge

¶131

Akhilesh

Tarachand Rathor and Others v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarachand Rathor and Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Jain Vs Shri Rajat Bansal

Bhagwandin Vs Atwari

Preeti Vishwas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Dharamsai Pando

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Sukhlal @ Bhima