Ganesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

This appeal was preferred by three appellants out of which two appellants namely Obey and Manjhi died during the pendency of this appeal. The appeal against appellants namely Obey and Manjhi is abated vide order of this Court dated 06.03.2018. Hence, by this judgment the appeal is decided only in respect of appellant Ganesh.

¶14

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.09.2001 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 6/1999 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶15

2

¶16

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 450 of IPC	R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 1 month.
U/s 436/34 of IPC	R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 1 month.

¶17

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that on 04.12.1997, complainant Dharamdev and his wife Rewaribai were living in their house at Store Para Purena. Dharamdev married Rewaribai as per the rituals and lived there for about five years. Before this, accused Obey had kept Rewaribai as his wife and after accused Obey went to jail in the case of rape, Dharamdev married Rewaribai as per rituals. On the date of offence i.e. 04.12.1997, after having dinner, both Dharamdev and Rewaribai were sleeping at night in a rented house in the neighbourhood in front of his house and had kept their house locked and at about 10:00 pm, the accused Obey, his brother Manjhi, his friends Ganesh and Chhotu came and stood in the courtyard of the house and used filthy language and then broke the lock of the house and entered inside. All the households were scattered and the households were set on fire. Both Dharamdev and his wife Rewaribai were peeping from the door and watching the incident. When the accused left, both of them shouted, then hearing the voice, Surendra Behera, Bhanwar and Shobha came and saw the incident. The complainant suffered a loss of about three thousand rupees due to the fire, and then both the husband and wife went to the police station and

¶19

3

¶20

lodged a written report vide Ex. P-4. Based on this, FIR was lodged vide Ex.P-3. During the course of the investigation, statement of the witnesses was recorded. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons and one of the accused namely Chhotu @ Laxman is absconding.

¶21

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 05 witnesses. The 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 innocence and false implication in the case.

¶22

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.09.2001, learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 1997, and thereby more than 26 years have rolled by since then. Appellants namely, Obey and Manjhi have died during the pendency of this appeal and one of the co-accused Chhotu @ Laxman is absconding and appellant Ganesh has already remained in jail for 6 years & 1 month i.e. from 22.03.1998 to 07.08.1998, 17.06.1999 to 22.11.2000, 18.09.2001 to 25.09.2001, 25.09.2001 to 18.03.2004 & 20.07.2022 till today and still, he is serving jail sentence, the matter is pending

¶24

4

¶25

since 2001. Therefore, appellant Ganesh may be sentenced with the period already undergone by him and he may be released from jail.

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment.

¶28

Having gone through the material on record and the statements of Smt. Rewaribai (PW-3) and Amritlal Gupta (PW-4), establish the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question beyond reasonable doubt. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant under Sections 450 & 436/34 of IPC.

¶29

As regards the sentence, keeping in view the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1997, the appeal is pending since 2001. Appellant-Ganesh is aged about 50 years at present and he has the liability of his family, further, considering the facts that appellant-Ganesh has already remained in jail for more than 6 years and still serving his jail sentence, this Court believes that ends of justice would be served if the jail sentence imposed under the aforesaid Sections is reduced to the period already undergone by him while keeping the finding and sentence with default stipulation awarded by the trial Court intact, therefore, his sentence is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶30

5

¶31

In view of the above consideration, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Sections 450 & 436/34 of IPC, appellant-Ganesh is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact. Appellant - Ganesh is reported to be in jail. Accordingly, the appellant be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶32

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶33

Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary action, if any, at the earliest.

¶34

A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail for compliance and necessary action.

¶35

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶36

H.L. Sahu

Ganesh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh 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

Vikram Singh @ Vicky Vs Haridarshan

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Bhaskar Dewangan

Ghanshyam Sahu Vs Pramila Bai

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rita Kumari

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs Pannalal

Smt. Pyari Bai Vs Krishnan K.