Partly allowed

Dhaneshwer Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Nov 2022CRR/224/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in CRR No. 224 of 2014 partly allowed a revision under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, granting probation to a petitioner convicted of assault and sentenced to fine. The Court directed release on personal bond and refund of deposited fine, and ruled that the order would not qualify as disqualification for the petitioner's employment application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on probation with personal bond of Rs. 1000/-; fine refunded if deposited; observations shall not cause disqualification.

Dhaneshwer Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 224 of 2014

¶5

Dhaneshwer Sahu S/o Late Derha Ram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Khartuli, Thana Dhamtari, Tah. And Distt. Dhamtari, Civil Distt. And Rev. Distt. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Distt. Magistrate, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Petitioners Mr. Punit Ruparel and Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocates For Respondent /State Mr. Sudhir Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶11

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶12

Order On Board 11/11/2022

¶13

This revision is directed against the judgment dated 3.3.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhamtari District Dhamtari (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.76/2013, whereby, the appeal preferred by the applicant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.7.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Dhamtari (CG) vide Criminal Case No.36/2013, in which, the applicant has been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to

¶14

¶15

imprisonment till rising of the Court and also to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 30 days, has been dismissed.

¶16

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 3.12.2013, the applicant along with the other co-accused persons were measuring land and in that process, they entered the premises of their neighbour Aajulal (PW-1). On this, a dispute arose between them and the applicants and the co-accused persons entered the house of Aajulal (PW-1) and harassed and assaulted Hareram (PW-2) with bamboo stick. Thereafter, the accused persons assaulted Aajulal (PW-1), Thagiya Bai (PW-7) and Geeta Bai (PW-8) with fists and used filthy language against all of them. Aajulal ( PW1) lodged an FIR in Police Station Arjuni, which was registered as Crime No.273/2013 for offence under Sections 294, 323 & 506 of IPC. After completion of the investigation, Sections 147, 149 & 342 of IPC were also added and accordingly, the charge sheet was filed.

¶17

The applicant/accused entered into defence and abjured his guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication and stated that the complainants are the aggressors. Though the accused in his defence examined none but exhibited 4 documents. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge, examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 12

¶18

¶19

documents.

¶20

The Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Dhamtari upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the applicant along with other co-accused persons of the charges under Sections 294, 506, 452, 147/149 of the IPC and convicted them for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. Against the said conviction, the applicant preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence, this revision.

¶21

Mr. Punit Ruparel and Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset, would submit that they are not seriously disputing the conviction on merits. They are only confined to the fact that since the applicant has applied for the post of Shiksha Karmi and there is every likelihood that he will be selected for the said post and in that case, the conviction awarded may have an impact on his career. Therefore, learned counsel pray for modification of the impugned judgment by extending the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short “the Act 1958”).

¶22

Per contra, Mr. Sudhir Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the same is well-merited and does not call for any interference. However, he submits that there is no criminal

¶23

¶24

antecedents of the applicant.

¶25

PW-2 Hareram has categorically deposed that on the date of the incident i.e. 3.12.2013, in the morning at 7:00 am when the applicant along with other co-accused were measuring the land, PW-1 Aajulal objected to the same, on which, the applicant along with the other co-accused entered into his house and beat them. He further stated that the present applicant assaulted him by a bamboo stick. The evidence of this witness is duly corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses i.e. Aajulal (PW-1), Shivnarayan (PW-3), Bhagwati Bai (PW-4), Thagiya Bai (PW7), Geeta Bai (PW-8) and also Dr. RK Tripathi (PW-13), who has examined the injured and found simple injury on the victim Hareram (PW-2). The Doctor has submitted his medical report vide Ex.P/10. In the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, nothing material has been elicited and even, learned counsel for the applicant is not disputing the conviction on merits. Hence, the conviction of the applicant is based on the evidence available on record, which deserves to be afÏrmed and is hereby afÏrmed.

¶26

Now, the question remains to be considered is about the sentence of fine. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has applied for the post of

¶27

¶28

Shiksha Karmi and there are chances of his selection also and further, as per the submission of learned counsel for the State, there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant.

¶29

In view of the above and considering the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act as well as the nature of the incident and also considering that the sentence of fine imposed on the applicant may attach disqualification, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to grant the benefit of the above Act to the applicant.

¶30

10.For the foregoing, the applicant be released on probation, keeping in view the provisions of the Act, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1000/- to maintain peace and tranquility during the period of 6 months. If the fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant, the same may be refunded to him. The aforesaid personal bond be executed before the CJM, Dhamtari within a period of one month.

¶31

11.With the aforesaid modifications, the revision is partly allowed. It is further directed that the observations made in this order will not acquire any disqualification to the applicant in any respect. Sd/-

¶32

( Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶33

Judge

¶34

Shyna

¶35

Dhaneshwer Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhaneshwer Sahu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Swarupa Vs K. Dharam Rao

Parvez Alam Ansaari Vs Vill. Panchayat Karandola Janpad Panchayat Bastar C.G.

Sushilchandra Pagariya Vs M/s Ultra Tech Cement Limited

Malay Jain (Petitioner in Person) Vs the High Court of Chhattisgarh

Ravi Ram Dom Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shirin Malewar Vs State of Chhattisgarh