Partly allowed

Deepak Singh and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Feb 2023CRA/1258/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C., the High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence. Considering the lapse of time and good conduct, the Court allowed the appellants to remain free on condition of depositing enhanced compensation to the victim, equivalent to the original fine and further sum.

What did the court decide?

Sentence altered; appellants remitted from imprisonment subject to deposit of Rs. 20,000 compensation to victim within three months.

Deepak Singh and Others Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Appeal No. 1258 of 2002

¶4

Deepak Singh, S/o. Lakshaman Singh, aged 32 years, Occupation, Private Services

¶5

Roshan Singh, S/o. Lakshaman Singh, aged 21 years, Occupation, Private Services

¶6

Both R/o. Sector –2 Road 15B, Q.No. 14/H, Police Station, Khhoka, Bhilai, Tahsil & Distt. Durg(C.G.)

¶7

--------- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh

¶10

---------Respondent

¶11

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellants : Shri T.K. Tiwari, Counsel along-with Shri Sanjay Sahu, Advocate For the Respondent / State : Shri Abhinuyyati Singh, PL

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

08/02/2023

¶15

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2022, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 35 of 1999, whereby appellants have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1500/and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 03 months.

¶16

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the appellants are residents of Bhilai, District-Durg and on 11/03/1998, the complainant Shivcharan was sitting near his house with his friends under Tamarind Tree (Imli) and there was a sudden quarrel between appellants and complainant where the appellants assaulted the complainant with knife. When the wife and son

¶17

-2-

¶18

of complainant tried to rescue, appellant have also assaulted them with rod and caused severe injuries to the complainant and his son, thereafter, complainant became unconscious. Complainant Shivram was admitted in the hospital and thereafter FIR was registered against the appellant vide Ex.P/7 and Ex.P/7-A.

¶19

3. The victims were examined by the doctor and they were given opinion vide Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-7(A) . On completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellants. The Trial Court has framed charges u/s. 324/34, 307/34 and 323/34 against the appellants. The appellants plead no guilty and pray for examination of defense witnesses.

¶20

4. To bring home the guilt of the appellants, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses namely Lalbhadur (PW-1), G.P.Sharma (PW-2), Dr. Rajeev Priya, Medical Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant (PW-3), Dr. M.K. Dwivedi (PW-4), Harilal(PW-5), Shivram (PW-6), Shivcharan (PW-7), S.N. Akhtar (PW-8) Sub-Inspector, S.K.Tripathi (PW-9) Sub-Inspector, V.P. Banjare (PW-10) Sub-Inspector.

¶21

5. In support of their defense, the appellants have also examined two defense witnesses namely P.Shankar Rao(DW-1) and Ramakant Deshlahre(DW-2). The prosecution witness Dr. Rajeev Priya (PW-3) has stated in her evidence that the injury No.3 sustained by the complainant was grievous in nature and following injuries were sustained by him :-

¶22

(i) 8cm Lacerated Wound on scalp (L) parietal area;

¶23

(ii) 4 cm Lacerated Wound on upper lip (C-Shapeo); (iii)Left lower lateral incisor dislocated left lower ancle incisor loose

¶24

The prosecution examined Dr. M.P. Dwivedi (PW-4) who has examined the patient in the hospital and also examined Harilal (PW-5) who is witness of seizure memo denied the seizure and stated that nothing was seized before him.

¶25

6. The victim Shivram (PW-6) examined before the trial court who has clearly stated that the appellants assaulted his son and caused injuries

¶26

-3-

¶27

on his neck, chest and face. Witnesses remained firme about injuries sustained by them. The injured person Shivcharan (PW-7) has stated that the appellant Roshan has assaulted him with knife which caused injury on the right hand. The evidence of the victim remained unshaken during cross-examination and on the basis of the material available on record the learned trial court has proved that the appellants have committed the offence u/s. 325/34 of the IPC and have convicted them for 01 year and imposed fine amount of Rs. 1000/- to each of them. This order is being challenged in this appeal.

¶28

7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned trial court without appreciating the evidence has recorded its finding about the guilt of the appellants which is based on perverse finding and deserves to be interfered by this court while exercising its appellate power u/s. 386 of the Cr.P.C. He would further submit that in case this court finds that finding recorded by trial court court is legal and justified. He would submit that during trial appellant No. 1 (Deepak) remained in jail for 24 days and appellant No. 2 remained 04 days , subsequently, appellant No. 2 bail was cancelled by this court, therefore, he was again sent to jail and remained for 70 days thus appellant No. 2 remained 74 days in jail. He would further submit that since the appellant No.1 was 32 years old at the time of commisssion of offence in the year 1998 and appellant No.2 was at the age of 21 years, 25 years have already been lapsed, the appellants were regularly appearing before the trial court. Thereafter, even after granting bail by this court they are regularly appearing. He would further submit that after this incident no offence has been reported against the, therefore he would pray the sentence imposed on them may be reduced to the period already undergone by them as during trial the appellant No.1 remained in jail for 24 days and appellant No.2 remained in jail during trial and even during pendency of the appeal for 74 days.

¶29

8. On the other hand learned counsel for the State would oppose the submission and would submit that the prosecution after examining the witness has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, there

¶30

-4-

¶31

is no justification for interfering in the quantum as only 01 year imprisonment has been imposed upon the appellants by the trial court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal.

¶32

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the court below.

¶33

10. From the evidence and material available on record particularly the statement of the victim’s wherein he has categorically stated that the appellants have assaulted them and caused injury. It is well settled position of law that the victim statement is sufficient evidence and merely there is some contradiction or omission in the evidence it cannot be ignored. From the records and appreciation of the evidence it is quite vivid that the victim in clear term has deposed about the incident and the injuries caused by the appellants remained unshaken in the crossexamination therefore, it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the trial court is perverse which warrants interference by this court. Even otherwise, the evidence of the Dr. Rajeev Priya PW - 6 who has examined the injured categorically stated about the injuries and has stated that the injury no. 3 was grievous in nature and injury no. 1 and 2 are simple in nature which remained unshaken and even the injuries sustained by the victim are supported by the medical opinion of the expert. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court has not considered the evidence and thereafter, it has recorded the order of conviction. Thus the finding recorded by the trial court is legal and justify and does not warrant interference.

¶34

11. Now this court has to consider whether the appellants are entitled to be considered for reduction of sentence or not.

¶35

12. Looking to the age of appellants at the relevant time of incident as the appellant No.1 and appellant No.2 were aged about 32 years and 21 years respectively at the time of incident which took place in the year 1998 and about 25 years have already lapsed, and also considering that

¶36

-5-

¶37

the appellants are regularly appearing before the trial court and also considering that the appellant no. 1 Deepak remained in jail for 24 days and Roshan Singh who remained in jail 74 days during trial and pendency of the appeal. Keeping in view the reformity theory applicable in criminal law and also considering that even after that the incident no offence has been pointed by the prosecution against the appellants and after the present incident the appellants are also not involved in any criminal case. Considering these aspect of matter, I am inclined to interfere in the quantum of sentence and accordingly the sentence awarded to them is altered to already undergone by enhancing the amount of compensation which is payable to the victim or his legal representative. Accordingly the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- i.e. Rs. 20,000/- has to be paid to the victim. The appellants shall deposit the amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- after adjusting the fine amount which has already been deposited by them as per the order of trial court within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order before the trial court who in turn will allow the victim or his legal representative to withdraw the amount of fine as compensation for the injury sustained by the victim. If the appellants are unable to deposit the amount of compensation as awarded by this court within the stipulated time period, they will take into custody for undergoing the sentence as awarded by the trial court.

¶38

13. The appeal so far as conviction is dismissed but so far as sentence is concerned it is partly allowed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶41

Judge

¶42

Ashish

Deepak Singh and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janar Ram Vs State

Kodu @ Indra Kumar Satnami Vs State of C.G.

Mahesh Kumar Sinha and Ors. Vs State of C.G.

The Chairman Cum Managing Director Vs Shri Bhuneshwar Mayaram Dongre Ex-Cahier-Cum-Clerk

Ratanlal @ Sheru Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balram Nishad Vs Himshikhar Gupta