Partly allowed

Rohit Sidar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Dec 2024CRR/712/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision under CrPC 397/401, the High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld the conviction of the applicant under IPC 294 and 324 but reduced the additional jail sentence to the period already undergone, directing the fines to run concurrently, and extended the bail bond for six months.

What did the court decide?

Jail sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine affirmed; sentences to run concurrently; bail bond extended for six months.

Rohit Sidar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 4

¶2

Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH YADAV YADAV Date: 2024.12.13 10:58:07 +0530

¶3

2024:CGHC:48806

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶6

CRR No. 712 of 2012

¶7

Rohit Sidar S/o Prem Lal Sidar, aged about 20 years R/o Village Bonda, P.O: Banda, P.S: Pusaur, District: Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate Raigarh and also through – P.S: Pusaur, District: Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. U.R. Koshley, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Sunita Mankipuri, Dy. G.A.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board

¶14

11.12.2024

¶15

Heard.

¶16

1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure arising out of the judgment dated 19.10.2012 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh District: Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2012 whereby, the appeal

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

filed by the applicant was partly allowed while convicting the appellant under Section 294 and 324 of IPC and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 200, in default RI for 10 days and RI for four months respectively, thereby, altered the sentence.

¶19

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.09.2009, at about 12:00 pm, the applicant along with other co-accused person abused the complainant Hema Bai and Tika Ram in public place and caused injuries by using Tangiya. Thereafter, the victim were sent for medical examination, where Dr. A.K. Bhagat, PW-5 examined the victim and found incised wound on left thumb bone and contusion on his right eye and gave his MLC report vide Ex.P/4. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B with 34 of IPC were registered against the applicant.

¶20

3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid Sections were filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded nonguilty.

¶21

4. Learned Trial Court (JMFC, Raigarh), after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence acquitted the applicant under Section 506-B of IPC and convicted him under Sections 294 & 324 of IPC and sentenced him to pay Rs. 200/-, in default RI for 10 days and RI for 6 months respectively. The said order was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide order dated 19.10.2012 partly allowed the appeal while upholding the conviction

¶22

Page 3 of 4

¶23

and altered the sentence part. Hence, this revision.

¶24

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 the applicant has remained in jail for 14 days i.e. from 19.10.2012 to 02.11.2012, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since 2009, i.e. for almost 15 years and fine amount has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

8. Considering the statements of PW-1 Sita Ram, supported by PW-2 Chitrasen, PW-3 Maya Ram coupled with medical evidence of Dr. A.K. Bhagat in the form of MLC Report (Ex.P/4) and other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding.

¶28

9. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the applicant have undergone about 14 days, he is facing the lis since October 2009 and there are 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

¶29

Page 4 of 4

¶30

the applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶31

10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed, however, both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

¶32

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.

¶33

Sd/( Radhakishan Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶34

Saurabh

Rohit Sidar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Sidar 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

Dileep Kothari H U F Vs Deewan Singh

Hulas Ram Sahu Vs Smt.Saraswati Sahu and Anr.

Nand Kumar Ahirwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramnarayan Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nand Lal Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Thakurram