Vikash Awadholiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 3

¶2

2024:CGHC:44036

¶3

Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2024.11.14 NAFR 14:57:04 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 715 of 2011

¶6

1 - Vikash Awadholiya S/o Shri Dukhiram, Aged About 22 Years R/o Tikaripara, Birkona, P.S. Koni, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Dilawar Awadholiya S/o Dukhiram (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Corut Order Dated 22-07-2024.

¶8

3 - Dukhiram Awadholiya S/o Ratiram Awadholiya (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Corut Order Dated 22-07-2024. ... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Koni, DistrictBilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent

¶11

For Applicant : Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer

¶12

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

Order on Board

12/11/2024

Heard.

The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.181/2011 whereby the appeal of the applicants has been allowed in part. The learned appellate Court, while maintaining the conviction of the applicants under Sections 323/34 and 326/34 IPC and also maintaining fine amount awarded on each count, reduced the sentences to RI for 2 months each under Section 323/34 IPC and RI

¶17

2 / 3

¶18

for one year each under Section 326/34 IPC as passed in judgment dated 05.01.2011 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, in Criminal case No.508/2009.

¶19

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Ganeshram lodged a report at Police Station Koni that on 24.02.2008 when he was engaged in fencing his agricultural land situated at village Birkona and after that when he was on way, at about 8.30 pm, the applicants armed with wooden stick and tabbal came there and abused and then assaulted him and his son Bajrang and thereafter they ran away. After the incident, son of complainant Bajrang was admitted. A report of incident was made to the Police Station Koni. During investigation, the applicants were arrested.

¶20

After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Court of JMFC, Bilaspur against the applicants. The applicants abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.

¶21

The Court of J.M.F.C. after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants under Sections 323/34 and 326/34 IPC and sentenced them to RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.300/- each under Section 323/34 and RI for three years with fine of Rs.500/- each and in default, they shall suffer additional SI for 15 days and 20 days respectively on each count, while acquitting them of the charge under Sections 294 and 506-B of IPC. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 22.11.2011 had allowed the appeal in part while reducing the sentence part as shown in opening paragraph. Hence, this revision.

¶22

During pendency of this revision, applicants No. 2 & 3, Dilawar Awadholiya and Dukhiram Awadholiya have died on 27.02.2017 and 27.02.2015 respectively, therefore, the revision stands abated vide order dated 22.07.2024 in respect of said applicants on account of their death.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant – Vikas Awadholiya submits that he does not want to press this revision on merit and confines the argument only on the sentence part, which according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that applicant and the complainant are relatives with each other the applicants were trying to dispossess the applicant from his land and in that event the incident took place. He further submits that the applicant Vikas Awadholiya is in jail from 22.11.2011 to 15.12.2012 and thus he has incarcerated jail sentence for a period of 24 days. He is facing lis since 2008, i.e., for more than 16 years and he has no criminal antecedents and that the applicant was a young boy. Therefore, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that the jail sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him with a direction to run sentences

¶24

3 / 3

¶25

concurrently. He further submits that the fine sentence has already been deposited by him in the concerned Court.

¶26

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

¶27

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record available with utmost circumspection.

¶28

So far as conviction of the applicant is concerned, the trial Court as well as Appellate Court, after considering the statements of P.W.1 Ganeshram, P.W.2 Bajrang coupled with the medical evidence of P.W.7 Dr.K.K.Jaiswal, P.W.8 Dr. R.K.Markam and P.W.9 Dr. Anil Kumar and other evidence and material documents available on record, have rightly recorded finding of conviction. The said finding of conviction by trial Court as well as Appellate Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to record and I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of the applicant.

¶29

As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the applicant has incarcerated jail sentence for a period of 24 days and the fact that incident is of 2008, i.e., more than 16 years have elapsed and that there is nothing on record to show that he misused the liberty while he was on bail and that there are no criminal antecedents; in the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served in sending the applicant back to jail at this stage and rather it would be justifiable if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶30

Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid Sections, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court as well as by Appellate Court is hereby modified as above and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. However, the fine sentence awarded under the aforesaid sections shall remain as it is.

¶31

It is reported that the applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶32

Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶35

Anjani

Vikash Awadholiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Awadholiya 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagat Ram Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramniwas and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Hari Singh Rajpoot

Gourishankar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Masihcharan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rajwade Vs Kuldeep Singh Chouhan