Partly allowed

Ramesh Kumar and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Mar 2024CRA/711/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh partly allowed a criminal appeal against conviction under Section 307 IPC. Accepting that the parties had amicably settled the dispute and the complainant desired closure, the Court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellants. However, it enhanced the fine from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 5,000 to be paid to the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 5,000.

Ramesh Kumar and Another Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No. 711 of 2003

¶5

Ramesh Kumar S/o Chhannu Lal Banjare Aged About 20 Years Profession Labour R/o Charouda Basta, P.S. Bhilai-3 District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Keshlal, S/o Budgu Satnami aged about 20 years, Profession Labour, R/o Charouda Basti P.S. Bhilai-3 District Durg C.G.

¶7

---Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

1. Ghanshyam Sahu S/o Balmakum Sahu, aged about 32 years, Resident of Shivji Chowk Charoda, Police Station Bhilai -3 District Durg Chhattisgarh - ---- Complainant

¶12

For Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. B.D. Guru, Addl. A.G.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board

¶14

11/03/2024

¶15

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 169/2002, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:-

¶16

Convicted under SecSentenced to tions 307 of Indian Penal RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in Code default of payment of fine, additional S.I.

¶17

¶18

for six months

¶19

The prosecution case, in brief, is that Veeru @ Robinson (PW- 1) and Ghanshyam (PW-2) were walking near the Charouda School in between 7-8 P.M. on 25.02.2002. At the same time both the accused came there and started abusing them and threatened to kill them. Complainant Veeru ran away due to fear. The appellants assaulted the injured- Ghanshyam with the help of Knife. FIR was lodged on the same day at about 09:05 P.M. at old Bhilai Police Station. The charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court against the appellants.

¶20

The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 05.04.2023, convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order.

¶21

Pending the appeal before this Court, the complainant has filed an application under Section 320(2) & 320(5) of CrPC seeking permission to compound the offence and for letting off the appellants from the criminal prosecution. This Court on an earlier occasion had directed the complainant- Ghanshyam to enter appearance before the Additional Registrar (J) of this Court for recording his statement. In the light of the order of this Court dated 30.11.2023, the complainant had entered his appearance before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) where his statement was recorded. In his

¶22

¶23

statement, he has made a categorical statement that pending appeal, the matter has been resolved amicably between the parties and they have settled their differences and dispute once and for all and as such he does not intend to further prosecute the appellants in the instant case.

¶24

The appellants in the instant case were on bail during the trial and the appellant No. 1 - Ramesh Kumar was in jail from 18.03.2002 to 08.04.2002 (21 days) and from the date of impugned judgment till the bail was granted to him on 07.07.2003 and the appellant No. 2 was in jail from 18.03.2002 to 01.04.2002 (14 days) and from the impugned judgment till 07.07.2003 till the bail was granted to him on 07.07.2003.

¶25

Learned counsel for appellants refers to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mahesh Chand & Anr. V. State of Rajasthan {AIR 1988 SC 2111} wherein the Supreme Court had granted permission to the trial Court to compound the offence between the parties in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties i.e. the complainant and accused in the said case. He further relies upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Badrilal v . State of M.P. {2005 (7) SCC 55} wherein the Supreme Court in a case where the accused was convicted for the offence under Section307/34 of IPC, in the light of the compromise entered into with the complainant held as under:

¶26

“4. A joint petition of compromise has been filed on behalf of the parties in which prayer has been made for recording the compromise. The offence under Section 307 IPC is not a compoundable one, therefore, compromise cannot be recorded, but at the same time it is well settled that while awarding

¶27

¶28

sentence the effect of compromise can be taken into consideration. It has been stated that the appellant has remained in custody for a period of about 14 months and there is no allegation that he assaulted the deceased. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that ends of justice should be met in case the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the trial court and reduced by the High Court is further reduced to the period already undergone.”

¶29

Learned counsel for the Appellants in the light of the aforesaid decisions prayed that the present appeal may also be allowed to the extent that the sentence of the Appellant may be modified to the period already undergone.

¶30

Mr. B.D. Guru, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the Court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for.

¶31

Mr. Aman Kesharwani, learned counsel appears on behalf of complainant, and submits that since the parties to the dispute were known to each other much prior to the dispute which arose and that subsequent to the assault and the appeal being filed they have amicably resolved their dispute and now are having a cordial relationship, the complainant as such does not want to further precipitate the matter any further and he does not intend to further prosecute the appellants also and wants the matter to be closed once and for all.

¶32

Having considered the rival contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the judgment cited by the counsel for appellants, this Court is of the opinion that the present case also falls within the factual matrix of the case which has been relied upon by the counsel for the

¶33

¶34

appellant. In the light of the compromise which has been entered into between the parties and also taking note of the statement of the complainant recorded before the Additional Registrar (J.) of this Court, this Court is of the considered view that it is fit case where the prayer made by the counsel for the appellant can be considered.

¶35

From perusal of the records, it transpires that Veeru @ Robinson (PW- 1) and Ghanshyam (PW-2) were walking near the Charouda School in between 7-8 P.M., on 25.02.2002. At the same time, both the accused came there and started abusing them and threatened to kill them. Complainant Veeru ran away from the spot due to fear. The appellant -Ramesh Kumar assaulted the injured- Ghanshyam with the help of Knife and the appellant- Keshlal has helped the appellantRamesh Kumar in assaulting the complainant- Ghanshyam. The complainant received eight severe injuries and he was taken to Sector-9 Hospital Bhilai for his treatment. The injury sustained by the complainant- Ghanshyam which is proved by the Medical Report i.e. Ex.P/8. Veeru @ Robinson (PW-1) who is the eye witness of the incident, has narrated the whole incident and supported the complainant. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.1000/-. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants under Sections 307 of

¶36

¶37

the IPC.

¶38

Now considering the question of sentence, as the appellants are facing criminal trial since 2002 and thereafter more than 21 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the appellants at present and further considering that the appellants have already undergone of more than three months of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court in Session Trial No. 169/2002 and bail was also granted to them by this Court on 07.07.2003 and both the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and now are having cordial relationship, there would be no useful purpose to remain the appellants in jail as they have already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 5 years under Section 307 of the IPC to the period already undergone by the appellant of jail sentence.

¶39

However fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 5,000/under Section 307 of the IPC. Enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the appellants within a period of two months from today before the concerned trial Court and the same shall be paid to the complainant -Ghanshyam Sahu (PW-2) if alive or to his legal heirs in equal proportion if they are more than one. If the enhanced fine amount is not deposited by the appellants within the stipulated time, he shall further undergo as has been ordered by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Durg. Ordered accordingly. The earlier fne amount of Rs.1000/- if already deposited by the i appellants, the same shall be adjusted in the fne amount of Rs. i

¶40

¶41

5000/- awarded by this Court.

¶42