Partly allowed

Poyami Suder v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Aug 2023CRA/22/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant under IPC Sections 341/34, 342/34, and 366/34 but allowed the appeal in part by modifying the sentence. Considering the delay of over 18 years and the time already served, the remaining sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; sentences under IPC Sections 341/34, 342/34, and 366/34 reduced to the period already undergone.

Poyami Suder Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 22 of 2006

¶5

Madvi Budhram (Deleted)

¶6

Poyami Suder, s/o Hidme, Aged about 25-26 years, R/o village - Aerrakot, Thana Perpa, Distt -Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, Through PS- Kodenar, Distt Jagdalpur Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For the Appellants : Mr. Alok Dewangan, Advocate. For the State/Respondent : Mr. Ayaz Naved, GA.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶13

Judgment on board

¶14

21/08/2023

¶15

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.11.2005 passed in S.T. No.96/2004 by the learned 4^th Upper Sessions Judge, (FTC), Bastar, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh, whereby the

¶16

appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under : -

¶17

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC')	S.I. for 1-1 (One-One) months each.

¶18

¶19

U/s. 342/34 of IPC	RI for 6-6 (Six-Six ) months each.
U/s. 366/34 of IPC	RI for 7-7 (Seven-Seven) years and fine of Rs.200/- - 200/-, in default of fine further RI for 1-1 (One- One) months each.

¶20

All the sentence to be run concurrently

¶21

Pursuant to order of this Court dated 17.07.2023, appellant No.2 (Poyami Suder) is present in person before this Court. His presence is marked.

¶22

During pendency of this appeal, appellant No.1 (Madvi Budhram) has died and vide order of this Court dated 05.05.2015 appeal on behalf of appellant No.1 has already been abated.

¶23

With the consent of the parties, appeal is heard finally today itself.

¶24

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.06.2004, When prosecutrix/victim alongwith her sister were returning from Tokapal market to their home. On the way, near Mauli Bhata School, appellants (accused) came on Jeep, took the prosecutrix on Jeep and fled away. Thereafter, appellants took the prosecutrix to the house of appellant No.2/Poyami Suder and thereafter to the house of appellant No.1/Madvi Budhram. On the next day, brother of victim alongwith other witnesses, reached there and on seeing them both the appellants fled away from the spot. Victim intimated the entire incident to her brother and other witnesses. Thereafter, matter was reported to the concerned Police Station, based upon which, FIR was registered against the appellants and they were arrested.

¶25

¶26

On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants before the Court below concerned. Charges were framed against accused persons and they denied the charges levelled against them and sought trial.

¶27

Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 10 witnesses. Statements of accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied all incriminating evidence available against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. After completion of trial, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner as described above.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and is confining his argument to the quantum of sentence only. He submits that incident had taken place in the year 2004, it was first offence of appellant and thereafter he had not indulged himself in any other criminal activity. At the time of incident, appellant No.2 was aged about 25-26 years and presently he is aged about 45 years and having his family. He has already undergone for about 06 months in this case. No purpose would be served by again sending the appellant jail after a lapse of more than 18 years. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶29

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellants, would submit that looking to the nature of offence, leniency should not be shown to appellant herein.

¶30

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.

¶32

Though learned counsel for appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record.

¶33

Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellants herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant No.2 is guilty for the aforesaid offence. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court. Thus, conviction of appellant No.2 is affirmed.

¶34

As regards the quantum of sentence, considering the fact that incident in question took place as back as in the year 2004 and now almost more than 18 years have passed, age of appellant No.2 at the time of incident was about 25-26 years and now he is aged about 45 years and having the family. During these years, appellant must have suffered tremendous mental trauma and anguish of trial, he has already undergone for 06 months in this case, he has no any previous criminal incident, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing remaining period of sentence and ends of justice would be

¶35

¶36

met if the sentence awarded to appellant No.2 is reduced to the period already undergone by him, i.e ,06 months.

¶37

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant No.2 under Sections 341/34, 342/34 & 366/34 of IPC is hereby affirmed. Sentences imposed upon appellant No.2 under aforementioned Sections are hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶38

Record of case be sent back forthwith with a copy of this order for information and necessary action.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Arvind Singh Chandel) JUDGE

¶41

J/-

Poyami Suder v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poyami Suder 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

Sudhuram and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Suchita Minj Vs Sanjay Singh

Minor Ku. Divya Vs Pooran Singh Sen

Nirmalchand Jain Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Lalit Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjeev Bang Vs State of Chhattisgarh