Partly allowed

Omprakash v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Apr 2022CRR/854/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court considered a criminal revision where the applicant, convicted of Section 325 IPC and sentenced to six months, argued for release as he had already served over five months of the sentence without challenging his conviction.

What did the court decide?

The sentence is reduced to the period undergone by the applicant (5 months 11 days); the applicant is to be set free forthwith as his jail term is complete.

Omprakash Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Revision No. 854 of 2021

¶5

Omprakash, S/o. Dularsingh Sahu, aged about 47 years, R/o. Mohlai, P.S. Arjunda, District Balod (C.G.)

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. - Arjunda, District- Balod (C.G.)

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amit Singh Chouhan, P.L.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

22.04.2022

¶14

Counsel for the applicant submits that as the applicant has already remained in jail for more than five month whereas the sentence which has been awarded to him is of only six month, this revision petition may be heard finally. He submits that he is not challenging the conviction of the accused/applicant and would confine his arguments to sentence part of the impugned judgment only. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear the case finally.

¶15

This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.11.2021 passed by Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 33/19 upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.01.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gunderdehi, District Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 308/2017 whereby the

¶16

¶17

accused/applicant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation.

¶18

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.05.2017 at about 2 pm when injured/victim Kaushal Sahu was returning to his house, on the way, applicant/accused, on the grudge of previous animosity, abused him; threatened him to kill and also assaulted upon him by means of bamboo stick, as a result thereof, he sustained grievous injuries. Based on above facts, present crime under Sections 294, 506-B and 323 of the IPC was registered against the applicant. Victim/injures was medically examined by Dr. Ashish Meshram (PW-4) and his X-ray was also done by Dr. D.R. Dhurve, Radiologist (PW-5). One Bamboo stick was seized from the possession of the accused/applicant. Spot map was also prepared. After usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/applicant before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gunderdehi, Disrict Balod. Charges under Sections 294, 506 part II & 325 of the IPC was framed and the same was explained to the applicant/accused, which he denied and his plea was recorded.

¶19

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

¶20

5 . Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gunderdehi, District Balod, after hearing learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, has acquitted the applicant/accused of the offences under Sections 294 and 506 part II of the IPC by giving him benefit of doubt but has convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC. In appeal preferred by accused/applicant, learned Sessions Judge, Balod has upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial

¶21

¶22

Magistrate, as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this revision.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/accused would submit that the accused/applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC for causing grievous injuries to the victim/injured without any concrete evidence, as Dr. Ashish Meshram (PW-4), who has medically examined the victim/injured and Dr. D.R. Dhurve, who has done his X-ray, have admitted that, if a person fell down on hard surface, then he may sustain such injuries, which have been sustained by the victim/injured in this case, therefore, conviction of the accused/applicant for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC is unsustainable and bad in law. He further submits that accused/applicant has already remained in jail since judgment dated 11.11.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod, till date, thus, he has completed 5 month & 11 day of his jail sentence whereas, the sentence which has been awarded to him is of only 6 month simple imprisonment, therefore, he is not pressing this revision as regards conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. He further submits that interest of justice would be served if the sentence awarded to the accused/applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. He submits that fine has already been deposited by the applicant/accused.

¶24

To this proposition of counsel for the applicant/accused, State Counsel has no objection.

¶25

Accordingly, keeping in view the fact that applicant/accused has served out 5 months & 11 days of his jail sentence and the offence, which has been levelled against the applicant/accused, is not so heinous and considering the submissions made by counsel for the accused/applicant; 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

¶26

¶27

undergone by him.

¶28

In the result, the criminal revision is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained but sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period undergone i.e. from 11.11.2021, till date by him. Since the applicant has already completed his jail sentence as above, he be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶29

Sd/(N.K. Chandravanshi) Judge

¶30

D/-

¶31

Omprakash v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash 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

Juvenile in Conflict With Law Vs State of Chhattisgarh

X Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dayaram Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Jaymati Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lalit Pratap Singh Vs Union Of India

Sita Ram Bisi Vs State of Chhattisgarh