Partly allowed

Dinesh Kumar @ Ganesh Kumar Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Apr 2022CRA/1313/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the appellant's appeal partly. While upholding the conviction for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, the court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant due to his long incarceration and the intimate relationship with the victim.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence reduced to the period already undergone; appellant set free forthwith if not required in any other case.

Dinesh Kumar @ Ganesh Kumar Thakur Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No. 1313 of 2017

¶5

Dinesh Kumar @ Ganesh Kumar Thakur, S/o Uday Singh Thakur, aged about 23 year, R/o Palnar Mundapara, Police Station – Kuakonda, District – Dantewada (C.G.)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station- Kuakonda, District – Dantewada (C.G.)

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant : Mr. Suresh Tandon, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amit Singh Chouhan, Panel Lawyer.

¶11

Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

¶12

Judgment On Board

¶13

11-04-2022

¶14

Counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant has already remained in jail for more than six years, this appeal may be heard finally. He submits that he is not challenging the conviction of the accused/appellant and would confine his arguments to sentence part of the impugned judgment only. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear the case finally.

¶15

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.04.2017 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada in Sessions Trial No. 38/2016 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.

¶16

¶17

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.11.2015 at about 7.30 pm complainant, who is father of accused/appellant, Dinesh Kumar @ Ganesh Kumar Thakur, was in his house, at that point of time, accused/appellant came from outside and when the complainant asked him that being an old man, “I do the work but you do not do any work”, hence, accused/appellant quarreled with him and by threatening him to kill, assaulted upon his father by means of axe and caused him four injuries upon wrist and chest and also slammed a stone on his face, due to which, his teeth got injured. Complainant was taken into Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, where he got admitted. Thereafter, he lodged Dehati Nalishi in Police Help Centre of the said Hospital. Based on that Dehati Nalishi, present crime was registered under Section 307 of the IPC against the appellant in police Station Kuakonda, District South Bastar, Dantewada. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant/accused under Section 307 of the IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dantewada, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewada, from where the learned Additional Sessions Judge has received the case for trial. Charge under Section 307 of the IPC was framed and the same was read and explained to the accused/appellant, which he denied and his plea was recorded.

¶18

In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in crime in question.

¶19

After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant for the offence as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal.

¶20

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned.

¶21

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the accused/appellant has been convicted for attempt of murder of his father but neither any doctor has been examined to prove the injuries sustained by him in the said incident nor any medical document has been proved, therefore, conviction of accused/appellant under Section 307 of the IPC is bad in law, as no such evidence is available on record, which could prove that the alleged injuries caused by the accused/appellant were grievous in nature and likely to cause death of the complainant. He further submits that accused/appellant has already remained in jail since his arrest i.e. from 18.11.2015, till date, thus, he has completed more than 6 years of jail sentence, whereas sentence which has been awarded to him is of 10 years, therefore, he is not pressing this appeal as regards conviction part of the judgment impugned and would confine his argument to the sentence part of the same only. He further submits that interest of justice would be served if the sentence awarded to the accused/appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶23

To this proposition of counsel for the appellants, State Counsel has no objection.

¶24

Accordingly, keeping in view the fact that the appellant has served out more than six year of his jail sentence and the complainant is his father, it also seems from the evidence that incident took place in intoxicating condition of the accused/appellant, hence, this court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping him in detention any further and interest of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶25

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained but sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period undergone by him. Hence, he be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(N.K.Chandravanshi) D/- Judge

¶28

¶29

D/-

¶30

Dinesh Kumar @ Ganesh Kumar Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar @ Ganesh Kumar Thakur 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

Abhishek Nirmalkar @ Monu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M.P. Ade Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramu @ Ramkumar Gaara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A (Juvenile) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A Vs State of Chhattisgarh