Partly allowed

Gulam Mohammad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Feb 2023CRR/11/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two criminal revisions challenging conviction under Section 295 IPC for cutting a sacred symbol, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone as incident occurred 20 years ago. Bail bonds retained for six months.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; jail sentences reduced to the period already undergone; fine maintained; bail bonds valid for six months.

Gulam Mohammad Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

Slngle Boneh

¶2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

(C.G.)

¶4

CRIMINAL_REVISIQN N0. U OF 2012

¶5

APPLICANT : 'Gulam Mohammad, S/o

¶6

¶7

Mohammad Hussain, aged about (In-jail) 45 R/o Maveshi Bazar, years, Bhaisa Pasra, Police Station and Tahsil Balodabazar, District Raipur

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

NON-APPLICANT : r5tate of Chhattisgarh, Through: the District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

CONVICTION SENTENCES

¶11

^-< Offence U/s. 295 of R.I. for'6-6 months and fine amount of Rs. -"500-500 I.P.C. in default of payment of fine amount R..I. for 15-15 days additional.

¶12

¶13

CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF_COD_E_QF_CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

-f. E£^-»

Page 1 of 6

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶18

CRR No. 2 of 2012

¶19

Bashir Khan S/o Shabbir Khan, R/o Maveshi Bazar, Bhaisa Pasra, P.S. And Tahsil Baloda Bazar, Distt.-Raipu r (C.G.).

¶20

---- Applicant

¶21

Versus

¶22

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

¶23

	---- Respondent
For Applicant	: Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate.
For Respondent	: Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Dy. G.A.

¶24

CRR No. 11 of 2012

¶25

Gulam Mohammad S/o Mohammad Hussain, R/o Maveshi Bazar, Bhaisa Pasra, P.S. And Tahsil - Balodabazar, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Applicant

¶26

Versus

¶27

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

¶28

---- Respondent

¶29

For Applicant	: Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, Advocate.
For Respondent	: Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Dy. G.A.

¶30

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board

¶31

01/02/2023

¶32

1. Both revisions filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure arise out of the judgment dated 28/12/2011 passed by 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazaar, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 96/2011, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶33

1. By the impugned judgment, the Appellate Court upheld the judgment dated 22/03/2010 of Judicial Magistrate First Class,

¶34

Page 2 of 6

¶35

Baloda Bazaar, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 66/2009; whereby the applicants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶36

Conviction		Sentence
Under Section 295 of Indian	R.I.	for 6 months and fine of
Penal Code (in short “IPC”).	Rs. fine (eac	500/-, in default of payment of additional R.I. for 15 days h).

¶37

1. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06/03/2003 at night the complainant Rekha Bai, resident of village Baisa Pasra, after having meal went to sleep. At about 3 O'Clock, she heard a sound of “Khat-Khat” then she woke up and went outside. After opening the door, she found that the applicants were standing there and cutting the “Jait Khambh”. When she inquired from the applicants as to what they were doing, they misbehaved with her and therefore, she went to her house as she was alone at that time. However, next morning she found that the “Jait Khambh” which was worshiped by her, had been cut and was lying on the ground. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under Section 295 of IPC is registered against the applicants.

¶38

1. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid section was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazaar, District Raipur (C.G.) The applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. The prosecution examined as many as 06 witnesses and Exhibited 03 documents in support of the case whereas one defence witness was examined by the applicants.

¶39

1. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary

¶40

Page 3 of 6

¶41

evidence, convicted and sentenced the present applicants as mentioned in the para No. 4. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 28/12/2011 , dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision.

¶42

1. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. They submit that neither the prosecution has examined even a single witness, who could depose that the complainant Rekah Bai used to worship that “Jait Khambh” nor any of the witnesses supported the statement of complainant. They further submit that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the fact of civil dispute between the parties. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside.

¶43

Alternatively, it is submitted that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the applicants is just and proper, considering the fact that the incident took place way back in the year 2003, the applicants were 45 & 52 years of age respectively at that time, they are the first offender, applicant Bashir Khan has remained in jail for about 30 days and applicant Gulam Mohammad has remained in jail for about 20 days, they may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them.

¶44

1. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that Trial Court has not committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the

¶45

Page 4 of 6

¶46

applicants and, therefore, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned judgment.

¶47

1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶48

1. PW-01 Rekha Bai, Complainant states in para 1 that on the date of incident she was sleeping at her house and after hearing some sound she woke up at 3 AM. When she went out of the house she saw the applicants. When she inquired from them as to what they were doing, applicant Gulam Mohammad told that they are cutting 'Jait Khambh” and also misbehaved with her. She states that she saw the applicant cutting “Jait Khambh”. In para 4 she states that she worship “Jait Khambh” and due to it being cut she is facing difficulty in performing Pooja. She states she saw that applicant Bashir Khan was having Saw (Ari). She admits that there are two 'Jait Khambhs” in front of her house, one is Pakka and another is Kaccha which was made by her and that she performed Pooja at the Pakka “Jait Khambh” which was never objected by anyone. PW-02 Charanmati, mother of the complainant and PW-03 Rajkumar Patre have supported the evidence of PW-01.

¶49

1. DW-01 Joseph Prabhu Sahai, has not stated anything about the incident and is also not an eye witness to the incident. In his cross-examination, he admits that in Satnami community, “Jait Khambh” is of great respect and they worship it.

¶50

1. On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that on the date of incident 06/03/2003, when applicants were cutting the “Jait Khambh”, at that time complainant reached there and

¶51

Page 5 of 6

¶52

stopped them but they did not listen to her and cut the “Jait Khambh”. Immediately after the incident she lodged FIR against the applicants narrating the above facts. In cross-examination this witness remained firm and the defence could not elicit anything which could render her evidence untrustworthy and doubtful. This apart her evidence has also been supported by the evidence of PW-02 & PW-03.

¶53

1. Thus, having regard to the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court finds that the Trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the applicants under Section 295 of IPC. However, considering the fact that incident took place in the year 2003, at that time, the applicants were aged about 45 & 52 years respectively, thereafter, 20 years have lapsed, they remained in custody for a period of 30 days & 20 days respectively, they have no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served if in keeping the applicants remained bars any longer and the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them, keeping the fine amount imposed thereunder by the Trial Court intact.

¶54

1. In the result, the criminal revisions are allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the applicants under Section 295 of IPC, their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them, keeping the fine amount imposed thereunder by the Trial Court intact. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent.

¶55

Page 6 of 6

¶56

1. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

¶57

-Sd/-

¶58

(Radhakishan Agrawal ) Judge

¶59

Chandrakant

Gulam Mohammad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulam Mohammad 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

Ratan Kumar Mishra Vs Smt.Shyamlata Mishra and Anr.

Naindas and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunita and Ors. Vs Krishna Das

Roopsing Vs Smt.Anitabai and Anr.

Bishat Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhilasha Singh @ Charu Singh Vs Gunjan Kumar