Tunwa Ram and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Tunwa Ram and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part: sentence under Section 307 IPC reduced to the period already undergone (about 1 year, 7 months and 3 days); fine enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- on each appellant (in place of Rs. 200/-), payable within 60 days, in default R.I. 4 months, with adjustment of any fine already paid; conviction and sentence under Section 353 IPC maintained; appellants on bail need not surrender and bail bonds remain in force for six months under Section 437-A CrPC.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellants is illegal and contrary to law and liable to be set aside (conviction under Sections 353 & 307 IPC). +1 more

Court's answer

Conviction upheld: on review of the record and evidence of PW-1 to PW-12, the involvement of the appellants stands established and this Court finds no illegality in the trial court's findings convicting the appellants under Sections 353 & 307 IPC.

Ratio / Principle

Sentence reduced: considering that the incident occurred about 21 years ago (year 2003), the appellants are aged about 56-61 years and have already undergone about 1 year, 7 months and 3 days, the sentence under Section 307 IPC is reduced from R.I. 5 years to the period already undergone; fine enhanced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 5,000/- on each appellant, payable within 60 days, in default rigorous imprisonment for 4 months (earlier fine paid, if any, to be adjusted); conviction and sentence under Section 353 IPC remain as they are.

Key takeaways

The appellants, who are on bail, need not surrender; their bail bonds shall remain in force for six months in view of Section 437-A CrPC.ratio¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal J.), CRA No. 1034 of 200 4, decided 03/01/2025 (neutral citation 2025:CGHC:524): Criminal appeal against judgment dated 20.10.2004 of the Sessions Judge, Jashpur in Sessions Trial No. 55/2003 convicting the appellants under S.353 IPC (R.I. 1 year) and S.307 IPC (R.I. 5 years plus fine of Rs. 200/-, default additional R.I. 15 days), sentences concurrent. HELD: (i) convictions under Sections 353 & 307 IPC upheld — evidence of PW-1 to PW-12 establishes the appellants' involvement in the 30.05.2003 assault on the police enquiry party at village Jamania, and no illegality is found in the trial court's findings; (ii) however, in view of the incident being about 21 years old, the appellants' present age of about 56-61 years and custody already undergone of about 1 year, 7 months and 3 days, the sentence under Section 307 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone and the fine is enhanced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 5,000/- on each appellant, payable within 60 days, in default R.I. 4 months, with adjustment of any fine already paid; conviction and sentence under Section 353 IPC left undisturbed. Appeal allowed in part; appellants on bail need not surrender; bail bonds to remain in force for six months per Section 437-A CrPC.

1

2025:CGHC:524

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 1034 of 200 4

Tunwa Ram Ahir S/o Parshuram Ahir aged about 40 years, Occupation – Agriculturist,

Nakulu Ram Ahir S/o Parshuram Ahir aged about 35 years, Occupation – agriculturist, Both are R/o of Village – Jamnia Path, Thana – Sanna, District – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellants

versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer, P.S. Sanna, District – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent

For Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Judgment on Board

03/ 01/2025

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.10.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 55/2003 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :

Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.01.06 15:04:37 +0530

2

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 353 of IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 1 years.
	Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years
U/s 307 of IPC	with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 15 days.

(Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently).

As per the prosecution, on 30.05.2003, one Jarmania Bai (PW-1) lodged a report stating therein that her goat was missing and some villagers abused her and also threatened her. The report was recorded in the Rojnamcha Sanha. Upon this report, Sub Inspector Bharadwaj Singh (PW-11), Sanjiv Kumar (PW-5), Constable Salik Tigga (PW-6), Baleshwar Mahanandi and Ramtej Mishra (PW-7) reached at village Jamania for enquiry. When they called both the appellants for enquiry, they were abused by the appellants. they were assaulted by appellant No. 1 with the help of tabbal and by appellant No. 2 with the help of an axe, as a result of which Ramtej Mishra (PW-7) sustained injuries on his head and left leg whereas Salik Tigga (PW-6) received injury on his head. On the basis of Rojnamcha Sanha, FIR was registered vide Ex. P-14 against the appellants and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against them.

So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. The statement of the appellants was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.10.2004, the learned Judge has acquitted appellant No. 1 (Tunwa) for

3

the offence punishable under Sections 506 & 333 of IPC and appellant No. 2 (Nakulu Ram) for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. However, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge is illegal and contrary to law which is liable to be set aside. He also submits that the appellants are about 56-61 years old at present and the appellants have already remained in jail for about 1 year 7 months and 3 days. The incident took place in year 2003, and since 2004 the appeal is pending. The sentence of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of IPC may be reduced from 5 years in the interest of justice. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Sukhnath vs. State of Chhattisgarh , passed in CRA No. 630 of 2006 on 20.03.2024.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.

Dr. F. Crispotta (PW-3) has medically examined Salik Tigga (PW-6) and gave his report vide Ex. P-2. Dr. F. Crispotta has stated that he had found a 10x2x2.5 cm cut wound in the parietal occipital part of the head of Salik Tigga (PW-6). He also examined the victim Ramtej Mishra (PW-7) and gave his report vide Ex.P-3 stating that he had found two cut wounds of size 3x1.5x2 cm in the skull of injured

4

Ramtej Mishra and 8x2.5x3.5 cm in the calf of the same person’s right leg, which were caused by a hard and sharp object and could heal within 10 to 12 days. The x-ray of both of them which was done in the case is not certified because there is no description of any traumatic injury on it. Dr. F. Crispotta (PW-3) has also not observed the said x- ray report and he stated that these injuries could have been cured in a maximum of 12 days. Dr. Suchita Lakra (PW-2) has stated that Ramtej had to remain admitted in Jashpur Hospital from 30.05.2003 to 07.06.2003 and both of them were discharged on 07.06.2003. In such a situation, the injuries of both the injured constables are found to be simple in nature. Dr. Suchita Lakra (PW-2) has also certified Salikram's discharge ticket (Ex.P-1).

Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Jarmania Bai (PW-1), Dr. Suchita Lakra (PW-2), Dr. F. Crispotta (PW-3), T.R. Rajput (PW-4), Sanjeev Kumar (PW-5), Salik Tigga (PW-6), Ramtej Mishra (PW-7), Dilip Kumar (PW-8), Arvind (PW-9), Dr. M. Tigga (PW-10), Bhardwaj Singh (PW-11) and R.G.M. Goutam (PW-12), establish the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 353 & 307 of IPC.

10.As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2003 about 21 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellants are aged about 56-61 years at present, and they have already remained in jail for about 1 year, 7 months and 3 days, in the interest of justice, in my opinion, it is appropriate to

5

reduce the sentence of the appellants from R.I. for 5 years to the period already undergone by them for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of IPC. However, a fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- instead of Rs. 200/- is imposed upon each of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. And the conviction and sentence imposed upon each of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC shall remain as it is. The fine amount imposed upon each of the appellants shall be payable within a period of 60 days from today. In default of payment thereof, the appellants shall be liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. If any amount has already been paid towards fine the same shall be adjusted in the amount of fine imposed/enhanced by this Court today.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove.

12.The appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender in this case. Their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC.

Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

H.L. Sahu