Banwari Lal Yadv Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. This appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC) has been filed, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.12.2006 passed in Special Case No. 15 of 2006 by Special Session Judge, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) wherein, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:

¶14

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 451 of IPC	RI for 15 days and fine amount of

¶15

-2-

¶16

	Rs.3000/-. (in default R.I. for 03 month)
U/s 323 of IPC	RI for 15 days and fine amount of
	Rs.1000/-. (in default R.I. for 01 month)

¶17

2. Case of prosecution, in brief is that on Santoshi Lahre Satnami (PW1) is a member of Scheduled Caste and appellant belongs to Yadav Caste and was knowing the Caste of complainant. Complainant was at her home on 09/09/2005 at about 09:00PM, the appellant entered the house of the complainant PW-1 and held her neck and abused her in the name of caste and also gave threatening for dire consequences and beaten her by hand and fist and also outraged her modesty. The complainant PW/1 ran away and informed about the incident to Ravi, Shiv Charan, Vinay Jangde and Omprakash. Report was lodged at Police Station - Kharsiya vide Ex.P/1 upon which FIR was registered in crime No.18/05, investigation was set on motion. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/2. Broken piggy bank was seized vide Ex.P/3 in presence of witnesses Umesh PW-5 and Kishan Lal PW-6. Complainant’s Caste Certificate was seized vide Ex.P/8.

¶18

3. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and after due investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate – Raigarh which was registered as Criminal Case No.373/2006 vide it’s committal order dated 11/05/2006 it was committed to the learned Court and was registered as Special Sessions Case No. 15/2006.

¶19

4. The appellant was charged for the offence punishable under sections 451, 323, 354, 506(B) of the I.P.C. and section 3(1)(10) of the S.C. &

¶20

-3-

¶21

S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Special Act’). The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

¶22

5. Prosecution in order to prove it’s case, examined as many as 10 witnesses and Exhibited Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/10 documents. Statement of the appellant under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he pleaded false implication. Two defense witnesses were also examined.

¶23

6. The learned trial court after appreciation of evidence available on record, convicted and sentence the appellant as stated above.

¶24

7. However, the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment, acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under sections 354, 506(B) of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of the Special S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, convicted and sentenced him as stated in paragraph one of this judgment.

¶25

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution was unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Statement of the witnesses is not credible and cannot be relied upon to sustain the conviction of the appellant. Alternatively, he submits that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is for 15 days and he remained in jail for 03 days and his sentence is also suspended by this court and he faced long drawn litigation since 2006 and he has never misused the liberty. There is no material available on record that he is an habitual offender, his freedom is not detrimental to the

¶26

-4-

¶27

society. Therefore, he prays that in the event the appeal is dismissed, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶28

9. Learned State Counsel supports the judgment and submits that the prosecution was unable to bring home the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. No linencay should be shown to the appellant.

¶29

10. Learned Counsel for the complainant raised objection.

¶30

11. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely.

¶31

12. Complainant was examined as PW/1 and on her statement before the court she is vividly described the happening of the incident. His categorically deposed the appellant entered into her house held her neck, plunged her on the floor and dragged her towards the door. She further deposed that she was assaulted by hand and fist. She was subjected to cross-examination at length but nothing incriminating was brought on record to disbelieved the statement. Dr. Smt. Lalita Rathiya (PW/10) has also examined the complainant (PW/1) and found four injuries on her person including lacerated wound swelling.

¶32

13. Considering the material available on record and submission of learned counsel for the appellant is repelled. This lead to the second submissions with regard reduction of sentence to the period already undergone. The maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is 15

¶33

-5-

¶34

days and he remained in jail for 03 days. It has been stated that the fine amount is already been deposited. The incident is of the year2006. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that he has involved in any criminal activity during pendency of this appeal. Appellant was aged 37 years of age at the time of incident i.e. 2006 and must be in his late fifties now. There is all possibilities that during these years he must have reformed in the Society.

¶35

14. Considering, the entire material and circumstance, this court is inclined to allow the appeal in part and reduced his sentence of 15 days to the period already undergone of 03 days while maintaining the fine. Therefore appeal is partly allowed to the above extent.

¶36

15. Since the appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

¶37

16. Record of the case be sent back to learned trial court.

¶38

Sd/(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶39

Ashish

Banwari Lal Yadv v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banwari Lal Yadv v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mange Ram Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yograj Vs Rajesh Kumar Sahu @ Munna

Mohammad Sahil Vs Smt. Aasha Singh

Soman Nirmalkar and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Neela Sahu Vs Mahesh Kumar Potai

Jagatpal Bunkar & Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh