Partly allowed¶31

Soman Nirmalkar and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jun 2024CRA/275/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court criminal appeal (CRA 275/2006, decided 15.06.2024): conviction under Section 325/34 IPC affirmed; sentence reduced to period already undergone; bail bonds continued 6 months under Section 437A CrPC; assault of 01.06.2005 at Supela, Durg with wooden-lock, bamboo stick and lathi; eyewitness Pw-1/Pw-2 corroboration by Dr. Shailesh Verma (Pw-10); acquittal under Sections 294, 506-II IPC and SC & ST Act noted; keywords: sentence reduction, Section 437A CrPC, 325/34 IPC, SC & ST Act 3(2)(5).

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 325/34 IPC maintained; sentence reduced to the period already served/undergone; appellants continue on bail with bail bonds remaining in force for 6 months under Section 437A CrPC; no separate release order required. ¶31

Soman Nirmalkar and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution proved the complicity of the accused-appellants in the assault beyond reasonable doubt. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The conviction is sustained on the categorical eyewitness account of complainant Santram (Pw-1) and the injured Baba @ Sanat Kumar (Pw-2), further fortified by the statement of Dr. Shailesh Verma (Pw-10) who found four injuries including fracture on the left knee; no supplementary report indicating grievous nature of the injuries was proved.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

After cumulative assessment of the evidence, the submission of counsel for the appellants that the accused-appellants are not involved is liable to be rejected.

¶26

Key takeaways

While maintaining the conviction, the sentence is reduced to the period already served/undergone: the incident is of the year 2005 with 19 years having passed, the accused-appellants are labourers who remained in jail about 5 days, nothing incriminating shows they failed to reform or misused their liberty, and no harm to society is likely from their release; their bail bonds remain in force for 6 months in view of Section 437A CrPC.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 275 of 2006, decided 15.06.2024, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Sachin Singh Rajput, J., single Bench): Appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.03.2006 passed by the Special Judge/Additional Session Judge, Durg, in Session Trial No. 44/2005, whereby three labourer appellants (Soman Nirmalkar, Set Lal, Tuka Ram) were convicted under Section 325/34 IPC (one year R.I. and Rs. 500/- fine each) for assaulting Baba @ Sanat Kumar on 01.06.2005; acquittal under Sections 294, 506 Part II IPC and 3(2)(5) SC & ST Act, 1989 had already been recorded below. Upholding the conviction on the categorical testimony of complainant Santram (Pw-1) and the injured witness (Pw-2), corroborated by Dr. Shailesh Verma (Pw-10) (four injuries including fracture of the left knee, with no supplementary report proved showing grievous nature), the Court rejected the plea of non-involvement. On sentence, noting that 19 years had elapsed since the 2005 incident, that the appellants are poor labourers who suffered about 5 days' custody, faced trial since 2005 on bail with suspended sentence and no misuse of liberty, and that no harm to society is likely from premature release, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, with bail bonds kept in force for 6 months under Section 437A CrPC. Appeal allowed in part.

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

CRA No. 275 of 2006

¶4

Soman Nirmalkar S/o Sukh Ram, Aged about 41 Year, Occupation – Labour, R/oNear Shiv mandir, Murum Khadan, Supela, P.S.- Supela, District- Durg (C.G.).

¶5

Set Lal S/o Soman Nirmalkar, Aged about – 20 Years, Occupation- Labourer, R/oNear Shiv mandir, Murum Khadan, Supela, P.S.- Supela, District- Durg (C.G.).

¶6

Tuka Ram S/o Soman Nirmalkar, Aged about – 18 Year, Occupation- Labourer, R/o- Near Shiv mandir, Murum Khadan, Supela, P.S.- Supela, District- Durg (C.G.).

¶7

---- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Supela, Durg, Dist.- Durg, C.G.

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Appellants : Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, P.L. for State.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

15.06.2024

¶15

This appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ( for short Cr.P.C.) is arising out of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.03.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Session Judge - Durg (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 44/2005 by which, learned trial Court held the appellants guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described below -

¶16

Conviction	Sentence Awarded
U/s 325/34 of Indian Penal Code.	Rigorous imprisonment for 1 years and fine of Rs. 500/- to each of the appellants/accused, in default of payment of fine six months R.I. to each separately and consecutively.

¶17

¶18

Case of the prosecution in brief is that Baba @ Sanat Kumar Pw-2 was assaulted by the accused-appellants on 01.06.2005 and also filthily abused. As a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries.

¶19

A report was also lodged by complainant Santram (Pw-1) in the police station – Supela and the accused-appellants were arrested and after due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.

¶20

The appellants were charged for offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part II, 325/34 of IPC and 3 (2) (5) of SC & ST Act,1989 but the learned Trial Court has acquitted all the accused-appellants for offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part II and 3 (2) (5) of SC & ST Act,1989 and convicted them only under Section 325/34 of IPC.

¶21

The prosecution in order to establish its case examined 12 witnesses as well as 16 exhibited documents. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case and claimed to be tried. The learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence convicted the accused-appellants as stated above.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution was unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Initially, the injuries was set to be grievous but subsequently it was found minor and these injuries could caused by falling on a hard object or place. She submits that the statement of witnesses is not credible. She further submits that all the accused-appellants are labourers and poor persons. They faced trial since 2005 and they were on bail during the trial and their sentences were also suspended by the Trial Court and they never misused the liberty. They remained in jail about 5 days and fine amount has already been deposited, therefore, in the event the appeal is dismissed, the sentence may be reduced to period already undergone.

¶23

¶24

Per Contra, learned Counsel for the State submits that from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the case against the appellants is made out, no leniency should be shown to them and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶25

After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the evidence adduced by the parties in particular that Complainant Santram has examined himself as Pw-1 and categorically described about the happening of the incident, he has very categorically stated that his son was assaulted by Soman Nirmalkar with a wooden-lock, Tukaram Nirmalkar assaulted with bamboo stick and Set Lal Nirmalkar assaulted with Lathi. The injured Baba @ Sanat Kumar Pw-2 is also supported the case who sustained injuries. These two witnesses further fortified by statement of Dr. Shailesh Verma (Pw-10) and sustained found four injuries including fracture on his left knee and no such supplementary report has been proved to indicate that these injuries were grievous in nature .

¶26

After cumulative assessment of these evidence, the submission of Ms. Mishra that accused-appellants are not involved is liable to be rejected.

¶27

This leads me to the second submission with regard to reduction of sentence. Nothing incriminating is brought to the notice of this Court that appellants have not reformed during pendency of this appeal. Nothing significant is brought on record to suggest that their freedom is detrimental to society at large. Overall facts & circumstances indicates that no harm to society at large is likely to cause in case the accused/appellants are prematurely released.

¶28

As a consequence of the above discussion, while maintaining the conviction that the incident is of the year 2005 since 19 years has already been passed. The accused-appellants are labourers and they remained in jail about 5 days, therefore, it is not appropriate to sent them jail and the sentence imposed upon the accused/appellants is reduced to sentence already served/undergone by

¶29

¶30

them. The accused/appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds will remain in force for 6 months in view of Section 437 A of CrPC.

¶31

The criminal appeal is thus, allowed in part. Since, the appellants are already in bail, no order regarding their release etc. is needed to be passed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶34

Judge

¶35

H.Ansari

Soman Nirmalkar and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soman Nirmalkar and Ors. 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

Banwari Lal Yadv Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Neela Sahu Vs Mahesh Kumar Potai

Jagatpal Bunkar & Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh