Partly allowed

Mayaram and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Oct 2024CRA/804/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court affirmed conviction of appellants for IPC Sections 325/325/34 but modified sentence due to 20-year delay and time served, reducing it to period already undergone while maintaining fine. Convictions sustained; appellants set free after serving sentence.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine remains intact; appellants set free if not elsewhere required; bail bonds operational for six months.

Mayaram and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 8

2024:CGHC:42123

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 804 of 2005

¶5

Mayaram S/o Shri Chain Sai, aged about 50 years, R/o VillageBhulsididh, Outpost- Rajgamar, P.S. - Balco, District- Korba (C.G.).

¶6

Shyam Lal S/o Shri Mayaram, aged about 38 years, R/o VillageBhulsididh, Outpost- Rajgamar, P.S. - Balco, District- Korba (C.G.).

¶7

Sagar Lal S/o Mayaram, aged about 36 years, R/o Village- Bhulsididh, Outpost- Rajgamar, P.S. - Balco, District- Korba (C.G.).

¶8

---- Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station- Balco, District- Korba (C.G.)

¶11

----Respondent/State

¶12

For Appellants : Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocate. For State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A.

¶13

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board

¶14

24.10.2024

¶15

This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 30.09.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.115/2004, wherein the said Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under:-

¶16

2 / 8

¶17

For appellant No. 1.

¶18

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 325 of IPC	R.I. for 03 years with fine amount of
	Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of
	fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months.

¶19

For appellants No. 2 & 3

¶20

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 325/34 of IPC	R.I. for 03 years each, with fine
	amount of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default
	of payment of fine, to undergo
	additional R.I. for 03 months each.

¶21

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.10.2004 at 6.00 am cow of complainant- Dhansai (PW-1) entered in the courtyard of appellant No. 1/Mayaram, on this issue, appellant No. 1/Mayaram got infuriated and said that despite being advised many times, he did not pay any heed to his words and did not take care of his cattle, being fed up with the nature of the complainant- Dhansai (PW-1), he abused him, thereby his wife and sons who were also the co-accused, caught him thereby the accused Mayaram assaulted him by club on his head, due to which, complainant- Dhansai (PW-1) sustained injuries. Aadharram and Shyambai were the eye witnesses, of the said incident. Thereafter, the report was lodged against the accused persons and Rojnamcha Sanha was registered on 06.10.2004 vide Ex. P/9. The complainant- Dhansai (PW-1) was sent for medical examination to Indira Gandhi District Hospital, Korba and from there received report vide Ex. P/16. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/1. On the basis of Ex. P/16, query report was received. Bed head ticket was received of complainant- Dhansai (PW-

¶22

3 / 8

¶23

on the basis of Ex. P/12. Memorandum statement was recorded of appellant No. 1/ Mayaram vide Ex. P/2 and from his memorandum, one article i.e. Club was seized vide Ex. P/3 and also query report of the said seized article was received vide Ex. P/13. C.T scan report was received vide Ex. P/15. Accused persons/appellants were taken into custody. Spot map was prepared by Patwari vide Ex. P/7. Thereafter the Crime No. 229/04 was registered in Police Station- Balco Nagar vide Ex. P/10. After completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, thereafter the matter was committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Korba and the accused persons/ appellants were put to trial for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

¶24

So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. wherein, they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case and pleaded their innocence and false implication.

¶25

The learned trial Court, after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

¶27

4 / 8

¶28

Trial Court has not properly evaluated the material on record and not appreciated the fact and evidence. The prosecution did not prove any motive behind the incident, the learned Trial Court failed to consider this vital fact. There are vital omissions and the statements of witnesses are contradictory to each other, therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶29

Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant No. 1 under Section 325 of IPC and appellants No. 2 and 3 under Section 325/34 of IPC, as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, the incident took place in the year 2004, this appeal is pending since 2005, the appellants are now aged more than 50 years and they all remained in jail for about 75 days and they did not misuse the liberty while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶30

Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced appellant No. 1 under Section 325 & appellants No. 2 and 3 under Section 325/34 of IPC. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

I have heard both learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶32

5 / 8

¶33

material available on record including the impugned judgment.

¶34

It is clear from the record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the appellants for offence punishable under Sections 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and it is also clear that prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses to prove its case against the accused persons/appellants. Learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence altered the offence under Section 307 of IPC of the appellants to Section 325 of IPC and thereby convicted appellant No. 1 for offence under Section 325 of IPC and appellants No. 2 and 3 for offence under Section 325/34 of IPC.

¶35

It is clear from evidence of complainant- Dhansai (PW-01), as he has categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that on the date of incident his cow had entered in the courtyard of appellant No.1/ Mayaram, on this issue, Ramvati Bai/wife of the appellant No. 1 came and abused him using filthy language, then his brother (Mayaram) came he also abused the complainant, caught him and thereby assaulted him by club on his head due to which he sustained injury. Thereafter he was admitted in hospital for about 18 days.

¶36

Aadharram (PW-2) stated in his examination-in-chief that he was Kotwar of village, to his house complainant- Dhansai (PW-1) came and stated that altercation took place with his brother (Mayaram), due to which he sustained injury on his head, but he did not state on what matter altercation took place between them. Kholbahara Tandon (PW3), son of complainant- Dhansai (PW-1) also supported the prosecution case and stated that all accused persons assaulted his father and

¶37

6 / 8

¶38

Mayaram (PW-1) assaulted his father by club, due to which he sustained injury on his head. Thereafter, he lodged an FIR against the accused persons.

¶39

Smt. Shyam Bai (PW-4), wife of complainant- Dhansai (PW-1) has also supported the statements of PW-3 and complainan- Dhansai (PW-1). Purshottam (PW-5), son of complainant also supported the statements of these witnesses.

¶40

Lekhuram (PW-6), who is the independent witness stated that he saw that scuffle took place between the complainant- Dhansai (PW-1 and appellant No. 1/Mayaram.

¶41

Ajay Kumar Sonwani (PW-9) recorded the Rojnamcha Sanha vide Ex. P/9 and L. N. Mishra (PW-10) registered an F.I.R. against the accused persons vide Ex.P/10.

¶42

Dr. K.S. Kanwar (PW-16), who examined the complainant- Dhansai (PW-1) on 06.10.2004 at 11.00 am, opined that contusion is present in his right side of head along with a lacerated wound and advised him for X-Ray, gave his report vide Ex.P/16. Dr. G. L. Wadhwani (PW-15), who was posted at District Hospital, Korba also examined the complainantDhansai (PW-1) and found linear fracture of right parietal bone, gave his report vide Ex. P/15. Dr. V. K. Agrawal (PW-14) who examined the complainant- Dhansai (PW-1), who was referred by Dr. S.S. Paliwal and he advised the complainant for X-Ray regarding his head, gave his report vide Ex. P/14. So, it is clear from all medical officers, who examined the complainant- Dhansai (PW-1) have found either grievous

¶43

7 / 8

¶44

injuries or fractures, or both upon the complainant and also his family members have categorically stated against the accused persons. Learned trial court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence including the medical reports and medical evidence altered the Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC of the appellants to Section 325 of IPC and thereby convicted appellant No. 1 for offence under Section 325 of IPC and appellants No. 2 and 3 for offence under Section 325/34 of IPC.

¶45

Considering the statements of all the prosecution witnesses and medical evidences, the learned Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant No. 1 for offence under Section 325 of IPC and appellants No. 2 and 3 for offence under Section 325/34 of IPC. and did not commit any illegality or infirmity in its findings as regards conviction of the appellants. So, the conviction of the appellants is hereby affirmed.

¶46

As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2004 and nearly 20 years have rolled by since then, this appeal is pending since 2005. The appellants are now aged more than 50 years; appellants have remained in jail for about 75 days and they did not misuse the liberty while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Hence, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded under Section 325 of appellant No. 1 and 325/34 of

¶47

8 / 8

¶48

IPC of appellants No. 2 and 3 by the Trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶49

Ex consequenti , the appeal is partly allowed . While maintaining the conviction of the appellant No. 1 under Sections 325 and appellants No. 2 and 3 under Section 325/34 of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the Trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court shall remain intact. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. The appellants be set free, if not required in any other case.

¶50

The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

¶51

The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey)

JUDGE

AMIT PATEL

Mayaram and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayaram and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.asrita Bai Vs Sarju Ram Vishwakarma And Anr.

Kameshwar Tiwari Vs Duryodhan Singh Nishad

Sachin Kumar Gupta Vs Bharat Lal

Dharmuram Bakshi Vs Smt. Giriabai Bhuaarya

Krishna Kumar Vs State Of Chattisgarh and Ors.

Subhawati And Anr. Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited And Ors.