Partly allowed

Yogesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC24 Nov 2024CRR/697/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 323 and 457 IPC but reduced the jail sentences to the period already undergone by the applicant, considering his youth, lack of criminal antecedents, and the long pendency of the case since 2007.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; jail sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine affirmed; bail bond in force for six months.

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:46172

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 697 of 2011

¶6

Yogesh Kumar S/o Lakhanlal Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Aacholi, Police station - Dongargaon, District - Rajnandgaon, (C.G.)

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through the District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R. Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. for the State.

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board

¶13

25.11.2024

¶14

1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 28.11.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2010, affirming the judgment dated

¶15

2 / 4

¶16

09.09.2010 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.210 of 2008, wherein the applicant was convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶17

Conviction	Sentences
Under Section 457 of the Indian	R.I. for eight months and fine of Rs.
Penal Code	200/- in default of payment of fine amount 3 months additional R.I.
Under Section 323 of the Indian	Fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment
Penal.	of fine amount three months additional R.I.

¶18

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.08.2007 accusedapplicant entered in the house of complainant, Dumereshwar Prasad Tiwari, after hearing the noise, the complainant woke up and started shouting and in that event the accused-applicant herein assaulted the complainant by fist. Thereafter, the accused-applicant fled away from the spot. On the basis of above report, offence was registered against the present applicant.

¶19

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, District: Rajnandgaon (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶20

4. Learned Trial Court after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in Para 1. During appeal, the learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2011. Hence, this revision.

¶21

3 / 4

¶22

5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that during trial the applicant has remained in jail for 12 days i.e. from 19.08.2007 to 20.08.2007 and 28.11.2011 to 07.12.2011, at the time of incident applicant was 18 years young boy, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since August 2007, i.e. for more than 17 years. He further submits that the fine amount has already been deposited, therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶23

6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment.

¶24

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

¶25

8. Considering the statements of complainant PW-2 Dumereshwar Prasad Tiwari supported by the statement of PW-1 Kartik Ram & PW5 Chovaram coupled with the other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding. Thus, I affirm the conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid sections.

¶26

9. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone about

¶27

4 / 4

¶28

12 days (period mentioned above), he is facing the lis since August 2007 and there is no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶29

10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned sections are affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed..

¶30

11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

¶31

Sd/- ( Radhakishan Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶32

Vaibhav

Yogesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Kumar 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

Deepak Kumar Patel Vs Laikhan Ram

Amit Kumar Mishra Vs Smt. Shivdevi

Smt. Shiv Devi Vs Amit Kumar Mishra

Pradeep Nayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Akash Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kiroti Nayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh