Partly allowed

Omprakash Gupta @ Bechu Bir Guruji v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Apr 2022CRR/637/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed the revision partly. While affirming the conviction of the applicant under Section 355 of the IPC, the jail sentence was reduced to the period of 17 days already undergone by the applicant. The fine was also affirmed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; jail sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine affirmed.

Omprakash Gupta @ Bechu Bir Guruji Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

CRR No. 637 of 2010

¶4

Om Prakash Gupta @ Bechu Bir Guruji, S/o Ramdawal Gupta, aged about 32 years, Occupation- Private Teacher, R/o Village Sonhat, P.S. & Teh. Sonhat, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Applicant Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sonhat, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Respondent

¶8

For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate.
For State/Respondent : Mr. Somya Rai, Panel Lawyer.

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board

¶10

12.04.2022

¶11

1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 26.11.2010 passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh Place Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2008 arising out of judgment dated 03.01.2008, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manendragarh (hereinafter referred to as 'CJM'), Place Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 493/2006.

¶12

2. According to the case of prosecution, on 16.10.2006, complainant Ashutosh was playing marbles ( Kancha ) in front of his house, the applicant who was the teacher of the complainant got angry seeing him playing marbles and also assaulted him. It was further alleged that after assaulting the

¶13

complainant, the applicant took him to school and made him spit on the sand and also take the same in his mouth. The entire incident was narrated by the complainant to his parents, thereafter, the matter was reported. On the basis of report made by the complainant, offence has been registered against the applicant.

¶14

3. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed before the learned CJM. Learned CJM vide judgment dated 03.01.2008, convicted the applicant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 355 of the IPC and sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment of 1 year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation. Against the said judgment of learned CJM, a criminal appeal has been preferred by the applicant/accused. Vide impugned judgment dated 26.11.2010, the Appellate Court affirmed the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 355 of the IPC and also affirmed the sentence and the fine amount. Hence, this revision.

¶15

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that he does not want to press this revision on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that the applicant is a teacher and he has already undergone about 17 days in jail. He has no criminal antecedents, he is facing the lis since 2006 i.e. for about 16 years and the fine amount imposed upon him has already been deposited. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already

¶16

undergone by him.

¶17

5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment.

¶18

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record available with utmost circumspection.

¶19

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the applicant is facing the lis since 2006 and there is no criminal antecedents against him. I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶20

8. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under Section 355 of the IPC is affirmed and against the conviction he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence for the above offence is also affirmed.

¶21

9. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

¶22

Sd/(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶23

S hubham

Omprakash Gupta @ Bechu Bir Guruji v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash Gupta @ Bechu Bir Guruji 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

Rohit Khakha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Karunanand Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Patre @ Pintu Patre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Fagu Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sahdev Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kailash Mongari Vs State of Chhattisgarh