Partly allowed

Latel Ram and Ors. v. State

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jan 2023CRA/308/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for forgery and cheating offences committed in 1991. Considering the long pendency of the trial, the appellant's age, and regular appearance in court, the Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone but enhanced the fine to Rs. 5,000/- for all offences.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence of imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-; bail bonds discharged.

Latel Ram and Ors. Vs State — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2000

¶5

1. Latel Ram S/o. Khor Bahra, aged about 45 years, alias Bahrata, Occupation- Agriculturist, R/o. Village Mudpar, P.S. Shivri Narayan, Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir (MP) now Chhattisgarh.

¶6

2. Hinchharam, Aged about 60 years, S/o. Ram Bharos, OccupationAgriculturist, R/o. Village Mudpar, P.S. Shivri Narayan, Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir (MP) now Chhattisgarh. ( Abated )

¶7

3. Vedram, Aged about 55 years, S/o. Shri Bodhram, OccupationAgriculturist, R/o. Village Mudpar, P.S. Shivri Narayan, Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir (MP) now Chhattisgarh. ( Abated )

¶8

--------- Appellants

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

State of Madhya Pradesh through Special Police Establishment Office of Lokayukta, Bhopal (MP)

¶11

---------Respondent

¶12

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Khumrani, PL

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

17.01.2023

¶16

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.01.2000, passed by Special Judge/ First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 12/97, whereby appellant Latelram has been convicted for offences: under Sections 419,420,467,468,471, 120-B read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous

¶17

¶18

imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- for each sections and, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 01 month.

¶19

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present appellant in connivance with the other co-accused has prepared forged and fabricated documents in the name of deceased namely Ghasiram to get the subsidy amount for construction of well by impersonating himself as Ghasiram under Jeevan Dhara Scheme of Government and obtained the benefits of subsidy amount with other co-accused persons and hatched the conspiracy. On the basis of complaint, an FIR (Ex.P-19) was lodged by Hemant Khare (PW-10) in Police Station Bilaspur against the present appellant on 05.08.1983 for commission of offence under Section 420,467, 471 and 120-B IPC.

¶20

3. In order to bring home the guilt the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in crime in question. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the material available on record, the trial Court by the impugned judgment, convicted & sentenced the accused/appellants as described above. The learned trial Court while convicting the appellant has also considered the report of handwriting expert J.L. Rathore (PW-14) and in Ex. P/13, P/14 & P/20, signature of deceased person has been made by the present appellant- Latel Ram and accordingly the trial Court recorded a finding that the present appellant impersonating himself as deceased Ghasiram, has done the fraud.

¶21

4. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the State that during pendency of the appeal, the appellants Hinchharam and Vedram have expired, therefore, the appeal so far as appellants Hinchharam and Vedram are concerned stands abated.

¶22

¶23

5. Learned counsel appearing for appellant would submit that he is not challenging the finding recorded by the trial Court on merit and he is confining his arguments only on quantum of sentence. He would submit that the present appellant is now aged about 68 years and he remained in jail from 05.031999 to 24.03.1999 i.e. for about 20 days. He would further submits that since he is not pressing the appeal on merit, but only making his submission for reduction of jail sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, the same may kindly be considered and in support of his submission, he would rely upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Surender Kumar Garg vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1993 CrLJ 2085, Abdul Hamid vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1981 (Suppl) SCC 82 and Bonela Swaminatham vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2000 AIR (SC) 3578.

¶24

6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment counsel for the State submits that conviction of accused/appellant is strictly in accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. He further submits that the sentences awarded by the trial Court are just and proper and do not call for any interference.

¶25

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶26

8. Though the appellant is not pressing his appeal on merit still from the evidence, material on record, it is quite vivid that the charges levelled against the appellant for commission of offence has rightly been proved, therefore, finding recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to the conviction of the appellant does not suffer from perversity, illegality which warrants interference by this Court exercising Appellate power.

¶27

9. Now this Court has to examine whether there is a mitigating factor to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant in the light of various judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Hon’ble the

¶28

¶29

Supreme Court in the case of Munilal Mochi vs. State of Bihar 2012(12) SCC 546, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 14 as under:-

¶30

As rightly pointed out by Mr. Rai, the appellant had reeled under the threat of being convicted and sentenced for all these 21 years. Even the High Court had taken more than 6 years to dispose of the appeal. As on date, the appellant is 71 years of age and has already undergone 6 months imprisonment. If we consider the date of occurrence, 29 years have been passed now. There is no record to show that the appellant was involved in other criminal case. Considering the case of the prosecution, namely, several illegalities and irregularities in execution of NREP which is a Scheme formulated by the Government of India, the fact that the occurrence relates to the year 1982-83, the trial went for 21 years and ended in conviction in 2004, the appellant retired from service even before conviction and his appeal was kept pending in the High Court for nearly 6 years, taking note of his present age, namely, 71 years and undergone 6 months imprisonment, we feel that ends of justice would be met by modifying the sentence to the period already undergone.

¶31

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Verma v. Central Bureau of Investigation 9014(3) SCC 485 has held in paragraph 8 and 23 as under:-

¶32

The long delay before the courts in taking a final decision with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the accused is one of the mitigating factors for the superior courts to take into consideration while taking a decision on the quantum of sentence. As we have noted above, the FIR was registered by the CBI in 1984. The matter came before the sessions court only in 1994. The sessions court took almost ten years to conclude the trial and pronounce the judgment. Before the High Court, it took another ten years. Thus, it is a litigation of almost three decades in a simple trap case and that too involving a petty amount.

¶33

12.The appellant is now aged 76. We are informed that he is otherwise not keeping in good health, having had

¶34

¶35

also cardio vascular problems. The offence is of the year 1984. It is almost three decades now. The accused has already undergone physical incarceration for three months and mental incarceration for about thirty years. Whether at this age and stage, it would not be economically wasteful, and a liability to the State to keep the appellant in prison, is the question we have to address. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence but enhancing the fine, while maintaining the conviction.

¶36

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ambi Ram v. State of Uttarakhand 2019(17) SCC 396 has held in paragraph 19 and 19 as under:-

¶37

“18. Keeping in view the aforementioned statement of law laid down by this Court when we examine the facts of the case at hand, we find that Firstly, the incident is of the year 1985; Secondly, this case is pending for the last 34 years; Thirdly, the appellant has now reached to the age of 78 years; Fourthly, he is suffering from heart ailment, as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, and is also not keeping well; Fifthly, he has so far, during the trial and after suffering conviction, undergone total jail sentence of one month and 10 days; Sixthly, he has been on bail throughout for the last 34 years and did not indulge in any criminal activities nor breached any conditions of the bail granted to him; Seventhly, the bribe amount was Rs.1200/-; and lastly, in the last 34 years, he has suffered immense trauma, mental agony and anguish.

¶38

The aforesaid 8 reasons which, in our view, are the special reasons satisfy the requirements of proviso to Section 5(2) of the PC Act. This Court, therefore, invoke the powers under proviso to Section 5(2) of the PC Act and accordingly alter the jail sentence imposed on the appellant by the two Courts below and reduce it to "what is already undergone by the appellant", i.e., 1 month and 10 days.

¶39

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of T.M. Joseph vs. State of

¶40

Kerala 1993 Supp.(1) SCC 465 has held in para-4 as under:-

¶41

¶42

“4. Now coming to the question of sentence, there are certain circumstances which have to be taken into consideration. The occurrence took place on 6-10-75. It is nearly 16 years ago since then the accused was out of the job and has undergone the trial for number of years. It is also submitted that up till now he has not received his pension and he has a large family to maintain. Further, he is aged about 65 years. In similar circumstances; this Court in B.C. Goswami v. Delhi Administration, has observed that "appellant suffered agony and the harassment of the proceedings for over seven years and that he is also going to lose his job and has to earn for himself and his family members and for those dependent on him and, therefore, to meet the ends of justice the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone."

¶43

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B.D. Goswami Vs. Delhi

¶44

Administration 1974 (3) SCC 85 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶45

“As already observed, the appellant's conviction under Section 161 IPC was rightly upheld by the High Court and there is no cogent ground made out for our interference with that conviction. The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the High Court for both these offences 1 year and this sentence is to run concurrently. The only question which arises is that under Section 5(1) (d) read with s.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act the minimum sentence prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for one year and there must also be imposition of fine. The sentence of imprisonment can be for a lesser period but in that event the Court has to assign special reasons which must be recorded in writing. In considering the special reasons the judicial discretion of the Court is as wide as the demand of the cause of substantial justice. Now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations, which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he has committed an act. which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as

¶46

¶47

a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining this question. In modern civilized societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to jail now after 7 years of the annoy and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs- 200/- to Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same.”

¶48

14. Now in light of abovestated legal position, this Court has to consider

¶49

whether there are any mitigating factors available on record to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant. There are certain circumstances which have to be taken into consideration before considering the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant for reduction of sentence. From the record, it is quite vivid that the occurrence took place in the year 1991 and the appellant has already remained in jail about 20 days, considering the fact that the appellant is regularly appearing before the trial Court since 08.08.1997. Even after order of conviction passed by the trial Court after granting bail by this Court on 04.02.2000, the appellant is regularly appearing before the trial Court on the date given by the said court. Thus, since 26 years he is regularly appearing before the

¶50

8 trial Court and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him, therefore, ends of justice would be served if sentence of fine amount awarded by the trial Court with respect to offence under Section 420/34, 120-B IPC, 468/34 is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- for all the offfences since for which he was convicted instead of Rs. 100/- each offences while maintaining the conviction. If the appellant fails to deposit the fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- before the trial Court within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the appellant shall undergone to serve the remaining sentence as awarded by the trial Court subject to period already undergone. Accordingly, I hereby confirm the conviction and reduce the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment for each offences as awarded by the trial Court to the period already undergone by him on each count, subject to the modification of sentence to the period already undergone by him and imposition of fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- for all the offences, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged in view of section 437-A CrPC.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶53

Judge

¶54

Santosh

Latel Ram and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latel Ram and Ors. v. State

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

Rajesh Agrawal Vs Ms. Alka Upadhyay

Ram Prasad @ Kallu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ishwar Sonkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Annuram @ Anturam Naag Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kriparam Bhardwaj Vs State

Narayan and Ors. Vs the State of M.P.