Santosh @ Santu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer ____________________________________________________________

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board

¶11

26/07/2024

¶12

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.09.2006, passed by the learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jagdalpur, Bastar, in Sessions Case No. 337 of 2000, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced for R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for three months.

¶13

The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 23.06.1996, the victim, Sambhunath, had gone to his relative's house in a funeral, and after

¶14

2

¶15

the cremation, when he returning back to his house at about 9 p.m., along with his companion Sahadev, he stopped to watch the drama play which was going on in the village, there, on account of old dispute, the appellant has assaulted him by knife. By the assault made by the appellant, he received injuries on his chest and abdomen. The persons who were present have intervened and taken him to the hospital. On the report of the victim, Dehati Nalishi, Exhibit P-1 was recorded. The victim was sent for his medical treatment to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, where he was medically examined by PW-3 Dr. Smt. J. Gupta, who, after giving him primary treatment and examining him, gave report Exhibit P-2. While examining the victim, the doctor has found, (i) Incised wound on epigastric region, 3 cm above and 1.5 cm, right to umbilicum, 1” size horizontally placed, omentum present outside the wound, (ii) Incised wound 3” below the right nipple, 3/4” x 1½” depth, (iii) Incised wound over, 3^rd thoracic vertebra 3/4” x 1½” no active bleeding. (iv) Incised wound over left scapula body 3/4” x 1½” x 1½” no active bleeding present, and opined that the injury (i) is grievous in nature, injuries (iii) and (iv) are simple in nature. For injury (ii) opinion to be given after exploration. Patient admitted in male surgical ward.

¶16

The appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement Exhibit P-4 was recorded. Based on his memorandum statement, knife has been seized vide seizure memo Exhibit P-5. The knife was sent for its query report to the doctor and obtained the query report Exhibit P-3. Statement of the witnesses have been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and after completion of the usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Chief

¶17

3

¶18

Judicial Magistrate Jagdalpur from where the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge for its trial and ultimately it was transferred to the learned trial Court.

¶19

During the course of trial, learned trial Court has framed charge for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed trial.

¶20

In order to prove the charge against the appellant, prosecution has examined 07 witnesses. Statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellant has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, pleaded innocence, and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. Two defence witnesses have been examined by the appellant.

¶21

After consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 326 of IPC instead of Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and has sentenced as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the material on record in its right perspective and thus sentencing the appellant is bad in law. He would further submit that without going into merits of the case, he is praying for the reduction of the sentence awarded to the appellant for the period already undergone by him, by enhancing the fine amount suitably. He would also submit that the appellant has remained in jail for about 44 days. The offence is of the year 1996. Now he is having innumerable responsibilities of his family, and therefore his sentence

¶23

4

¶24

may be reduced. In support of his submission, he would rely the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in the matter of Shekhar Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 986 .

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State would vehemently oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submit that considering the nature of offence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶27

From perusal of the record, it transpires that the trial Court, after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the injury report, and the evidence of the doctor who has treated and examined the victim, has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for three months.

¶28

After considering the entire evidence available on the record, I am of the view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the judgment of conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code.

¶29

Now considering the question of sentence, as the appellant is facing criminal trial since 1996, and thereafter more than 28 years elapsed, considering the age of the appellant at present, and further

¶30

5

¶31

considering that the appellant has already undergone 44 days of jail sentence and he was on bail during the trial as well as during the pendency of this appeal, by efflux of time, he would have the innumerable responsibilities of his family and also the judgment of Shekhar Verma (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, there would be no useful purpose to again send the appellant in jail, as he has already suffered agony of criminal trial for about 28 years, that meet the ends of justice.

¶32

This Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from R.I. for 3 years to the period already undergone by him i.e. 44 days for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, however, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. The enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the appellant within a further period of 02 months from today before the learned trial Court and the same shall be paid to the victim Shambhunath, if alive or his legal heirs in equal proportion, failing which, he shall undergo the R.I. for 3 months. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond shall continue for a further period of 6 months, as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above.

¶33

Let a copy of this judgment and the record of the trial Court be sent back for necessary information and compliance.

¶34

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶35

ved

¶36

Digitally
signed by
VEDPRAKASH
VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2024.08.02
18:12:54
+0530

Santosh @ Santu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh @ Santu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naya Raipur Development Authority (Now Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran) Vs Gaukaran

Meena Bai Shrivas Vs Union of India

Sushil Minj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Girish Purohit Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashwani Kumar Kashyap Vs Rajendra Kumar Jagat

Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited Vs v. Laxmi