Balram Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 The appellants have filed this appeal under 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ( for short, the Cr.P.C. ) questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Sessions Trial No. 03/2020 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian

¶19

2

¶20

Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

¶21

2 There were total three accused in this case namely, Balram Chandrakar, Jhurwa @ Devcharan and Sita Bai Chandrakar. Sita Bai Chandrakar has been acquitted of the charges and the present appeal relates to only Balram Chandrakar and Jhurwa @ Devcharan Chandrakar.

¶22

3 The accused were charged under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC alleging that on 10.11.2019 at about 07.30 a.m., in village Badharra, Police Station Kunda, having formed a common intention to murder Gorelal, and in furtherance of the common intention, they intentionally assaulted Gorelal and caused a grievous injuries to him, as a result of which Gorelal died on 14.11.2019.

¶23

4 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that after marriage, Gorelal was living with his mother-in-law Bhagmati at her in-laws' place in village Bagharra with his family. About three years ago, Gorelal saw his wife with another man. Gorelal had forbidden his wife, on this Gorelal's wife separated from Gorelal. Gorelal's wife lived in her maternal house with children. Thereafter, Gorelal went to look for a match to bring a second wife. Mother-in-law Bhagmati had warned him not to do such act. On this issue, on 10.11.2019, Gorelal's mother-in-law met Gorelal in the street in front of Kamar Kashyap's house and abused Gorelal. When Gorelal resisted, she hit him with a stick. After this incident, when Gorelal was going to his house, then the accused son Balram hit him on the head with an iron rod and Jhuruwa hit him on the left leg, both hands and back with a stick, due to which the left leg was broken. The incident was witnessed by Sarju (PW-2), Samelal @ Sammelal (PW-3) and Geetu @

¶24

3

¶25

Geetram (PW-4). On the report lodged by Gorelal on 10.11.2019, Investigating OfÏcer (for short, the IO) namely Baldau Bhatt, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-10) registered a Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P/32). Before registering the Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P/32), on 10.11.2019, on receipt of information (Exhibit P/27) sent by Dr. Keshav Kumar Jaiswal (PW-9) from Government Hospital Pandaria, the IO (PW-10) reached Government Hospital Pandaria and sent a memo for the medical examination of Gorelal and gave it to Medical OfÏcer Pandaria, namely Dr. Keshav Kumar Jaiswal (PW-9) who conducted medical examination of the injured Gorelal and provided report (Exhibit P/28). The IO recorded the statement of the injured/applicant Gorelal. Thereafter, as the incident occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kunda, the case diary was sent to Police Station Kunda. On receipt of the case diary, Inspector Moolchand Patle (PW-11) lodged the First Information Report (FIR) against the accused on 11.11.2019 vide Exhibit P-33. After inspecting the crime scene, a spot map (Exhibit P/2) was prepared as per the testimony of the witnesses.

¶26

5 Thereafter, on 14.11.2019, Dr. Gajendra Singh (PW-8) sent a report to Kawardha Police Station about Gorelal's death during treatment at Radiance Hospital. Then Assistant Sub Inspector, Bishat Biharti registered the merg intimation being Exhibit P/45. She gave notices (Exhibit P/12) to the witnesses for conducting Panchnama of the deceased. In the presence of Panch witnesses namely Balram (PW-7) and Kanhaiya (PW-5), the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Exhibit P/13. Bishat Bharti, ASI, submitted an application (Exhibit P/40) to the District Hospital Kawardha for conducting the post-mortem of the deceased. On 15.11.2019, Dr. Swadesh Jaiswal (PW-1) conducted the post-mortem of the deceased

¶27

4

¶28

and gave its report vide Exhibit P/1. Inspector Moolchand Patle (PW-11) registered the numbered Merg intimation being Exhibit P/34. On 06.12.2019 accused Balram was taken into custody in presence of witness Sarju (PW-2) and Dwarika (PW-6) and his memorandum statement (Exhibit P/3) was recorded. At the instance of Balram, an iron pipe was seized vide Exhibit P/5 which was recovered from his house. On the same date, accused Jhuruva alias Devnath was taken into custody in presence of the said witnesses and his memorandum statement (Exhibit P/4) was recorded. At his instance, a bamboo stick was seized from the house vide Exhibit P/6. On 19.12.2019, in the presence of witness Dwarika (PW-6) and Balram @ Balla (PW-7) accused Sita Bai was questioned and her memorandum statement (Exhibit P/15) was recorded. At the instance of the accused Sita Bai, a bamboo stick was seized from the house vide Exhibit P/16. The accused were arrested and arrest memo was prepared being Exhibit P/34 to P/36 and their relatives were duly informed vide Exhibit P/37 and P/38.

¶29

6 Moolchand Patle (PW-11) during the course of investigation on 22.12.2019 sent application (Exhibit P/29 to 31) to the Block Medical OfÏcer, Community Health Center, Pandaria for giving query report regarding two seized bamboo sticks and iron pipe. Dr. Keshav Kumar Jaiswal (PW-9) examined the said articles and provided query report vide Exhibit P/29 to 31. On 21.11.2019, an application (Exhibit P/39) was sent to Radiance Hospital Kawardha for providing medical documents of deceased Gorelal. Dr. Gajendra Singh Radiance Hospital Kawardha ASI 08 provided medical documents (Exhibits 18 to 25). Moolchand Patle (PW-11) recorded the statements of Sarju Chandrakar, Geetu @ Geetram, Samelal Balram @ Balla, Kanhaiya Chandrakar and Manharan Das as told by them. In order to get the seized property

¶30

5

¶31

chemically tested in the case, the same were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, vide the memorandum of the Superintendent of Police (Exhibit P/41) and its report were obtained vide Exhibit P/43.

¶32

7 After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet before the police completed the investigation and presented a chargesheet against the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandariya, District Kabirdham, on 29.12.2019 which was registered as Criminal Case No. 630/2019 and the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 13.01.2020 committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Kabirdham (Kawardha).

¶33

8 Charges were framed against the accused/appellants on 22.01.2020 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants/accused abjured the guilt and prayed for trial.

¶34

9 In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses namely, Dr. Swadesh Jaiswal (PW-1), Sarju Prasad (PW-2), Sammelal (PW-3), Geetaram (PW-4), Kanhaiya (PW-5), Dwarika (PW6), Balram @ Balla (PW-7), Dr. Gajendra Singh (PW-8), Dr. Keshav Kumar Jaiswal (PW-9), Baldau Bhatt (PW-10) and Moolchand Patle (PW-11) and exhibited as many as 46 Exhibits.

¶35

10 The statement of the convict/appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C wherein the appellants expressed their ignorance about most of the questions, however, some of them were denied as well. They stated that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated.

¶36

11 The learned trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 17.11.2021

¶37

6

¶38

convicted and sentenced the appellants, as detailed in first paragraph of this judgment. However, the accused-Sita Bai Chandrakar was acquitted of the charges.

¶39

12 Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Balram Chandrakar and Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Jhurwa @ Devcharan submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned trial Court has wrongly treated the FIR to be the dying declaration of the deceased because the deceased died four days after the alleged incident. It is not the case where the assault was made by the appellants and the deceased died instantaneously. In the MLC, no fracture was found on the head of the deceased whereas only in the postmortem report, fracture has been found which creates suspicion. They further submit that no crime has been committed by the appellants and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the involvement of the appellants and the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants only on the basis of presumption and assumption. They also submit that the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC though allegations are absolutely baseless having no foundation. Alternatively, they submit that the deceased died after four days of the incident because of injuries sustained by him on the head, therefore, at the most, offence under 304 Part I or Part II or under Section 325 of the IPC would be made out and the appellants’ conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is liable to be set aside.

¶40

13 On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that there is ample evidence on record to hold the

¶41

7

¶42

appellants guilty of the offence. The evidence of the witnesses clearly indicate towards the fact that it is the appellants who have committed murder of the deceased and they have rightly been convicted and sentence as aforesaid and as such, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶43

14 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶44

15 There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased died an unnatural death because of the injuries sustained by him. The MLC was conducted by Dr. Keshav Kumar Jaiswal, who vide his report (Exhibit P/28) stated that there was fracture present in the left tibia, fibula (open fracture), swelling on right fore arm and sever pain in left shoulder joint, lacerated wound between parietal region (8x1x1 c.m.), multiple redness and bruises, in back side, multiple in number and all size approx 1520x3 c.m.). The admission form (Exhibit P/18) of the deceased who was admitted in Radiance Hospital & Research Centre on 10.11.2019 at 6:17 p.m. states that the deceased was diagnosed with compound fracture of tibia and fibula, left, fracture upper border of scapula, right, stitched wound (Head). The appellant remained admitted in the hospital till 04.11.2019 on which date at about 9: p.m., he died because of respiratory failure. In the postmortem (Exhibit P/1), the Doctor found stitched wound present 3 c.m. below the left knee size 3 c.m. long, two stitched present on left ankle joint size 1 c.m., stitched wound present between the both parietal bone in midline 10 c.m. long and fracture present below the midline of parietal bone at level sagetal suture extended vertically, blood clot present between the parietal bone ,

¶45

8

¶46

fracture present middle of left tibia fibula bone, colour of wound dark brown to brownish black scab, fracture present on upper border of right scapula. He had opined the cause of death to be shock caused by head injury. The Doctor i.e. Swadesh Jaiswal (PW-1) has deposed the aforesaid in his deposition before the Court. Dr. Gajendra Singh (PW-8) is the Orthopaedic who who had conducted the X-ray and given its report (Exhibit P/23).

¶47

16 The complaint was lodged by the injured/deceased Gorelal Chandrakar himself. He has clearly deposed that his wife was residing separately from him alongwith his children. The deceased wanted to marry another lady which was objected to by his mother-in-law because of which a scufÒe took place between the deceased and mother-in-law Bhagmati Bai. The deceased hit Bhagmati Bai with a stick and on coming to know about this, his son Balram Chandrakar alongwith one Jhurwa @ Devcharan Chandrakar came and assaulted the deceased with stick and rod on his head, back and leg and caused injuries. The alleged eye witnesses namely Sarju Prasad (PW-2), Sammelal (PW-3) and Geetaram (PW-4) have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story. However, in the memorandum statement of the accused/ appellants (Exhibit P/3 and P/4) one of whom is the son of the deceased and other the nephew, have stated that when the appellant assaulted their maternal grandmother Bhagmati, they became infuriated and assaulted the deceased with an iron pipe and a wooden stick which has been recovered at their instance from their respective houses. The FSL report states that blood was found in the iron pipe seized from accusedBalram Chandrakar.

¶48

9

¶49

17 The question for consideration would be as to whether the case of the appellants is covered within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC vis-avis culpable homicide not amounting to murder and their conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellants especially when the assault was made on 10.11.2019 and the death occurred on 14.11.2019 while he was under treatment in the Hospital.

¶50

18 It is an admitted position that the dispute arose when the deceased himself assaulted his mother-in-law Bhagmati when she objected the attempt of the deceased to remarry when her first wife was alive. When the appellants saw that Bhagmati was assaulted by the deceased, they attacked the deceased with iron pipe and wooden stick. Though the assault was made on head, legs and other parts of the body, but it cannot be said that the appellants had the intention to cause death of the deceased or that they knew that the injuries which was caused by them would result into his death.

¶51

19 The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana 1 has observed as under:-

¶52

“21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the absence of the existence of common object Sukhbir Singh is proved to have committed the offence of culpable homicide without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and his case is covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC which is punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC. The finding of the courts below holding the aforesaid appellant guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC is set aside and he is held guilty for the commission of offence of culpable homicide not

¶53

1 (2002) 3 SCC 327

¶54

10

¶55

amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.”

¶56

20 The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana 2 has laid down certain factors which are to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused with reference to Section 302 or Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which state as under :

¶57

“23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen fro its special perspective. The relevant factors are as under :

¶58

(a) Motive or previous enmity;

¶59

(b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment;

¶60

(c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury;

¶61

(d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days;

¶62

(e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury;

¶63

(f) The age and general health condition of the accused;

¶64

(g) Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight;

¶65

(h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted;

¶66

(i) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused;

¶67

(j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufÏcient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock;

¶68

2 (2009) 15 SCC 635

¶69

11

¶70

(k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused;

¶71

(l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations;

¶72

(m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident.

¶73

Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment ?

¶74

These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused.

¶75

The list of circumstances enumerated above is only illustrative and not exhaustive. In our considered view, proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the bounded obligation and duty of the court. The endeavour of the court must be to ensure that the accused receives appropriate sentence, in other words, sentence should be according to the gravity of the offence. These are some of the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view while convicting and sentencing the accused.”

¶76

21 Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda 3, their Lordships of

¶77

the Supreme Court have held that once knowledge that it is likely to cause death is established but without any intention to cause death, then jail sentence may be for a term which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both. It has further been held that to make out an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove the death of the person in question and such death was caused by the act of the accused and that he knew that such act of his is likely to cause death.

¶78

3 (2012) 8 SCC 450

¶79

12

¶80

22 Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh 4 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as under :

¶81

“20. To invoke this Exception 4, the requirements that are to be fulfilled have been laid down by this Court in Surinder Kumar v. UT, Chandigarh [(1989) 2 SCC 217 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 348], it has been explained as under :(SCC p. 220, para 7)

¶82

“7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (I) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor its I relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly.”

¶83

Further in Arumugam v. State [(2008) 15 SCC 590 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1130], in support of the proposition of law that under what circumstances Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC can be invoked if death is caused, it has been explained as under : (SCC p. 596, para 9)

¶84

“9. …. '18. The help of exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the “fight” occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the Penal Code, 1860. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two or more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question

¶85

4 (2017) 3 SCC 247

¶86

13

¶87

of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufÏcient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression “undue advantage” as used in the provisions means “unfair advantage”.

¶88

23 In the matter of Arjun (supra), the Supreme Court has held that if there is intent and knowledge, the same would be case of Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and if it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then same would be a case of Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.

¶89

24 Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi)5 has laid down four ingredients which should be tested to bring a case within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, which reads as under:

¶90

“16. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC shows that the following four ingredients are required:

¶91

(i) There must be a sudden fight;

¶92

(ii) There was no premeditation;

¶93

(iii) The act was committed in a heat of passion; and

¶94

(iv) The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

¶95

25 The term grievous hurt has been defined in Section 320 of the IPC which

¶96

reads as under:

¶97

“ 320. Grievous hurt . - The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:

¶98

First. - Emasculation.

¶99

Secondly - Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.

¶100

Thirdly - Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.

¶101

Fourthly - Privation of any member or joint.

¶102

5 (2019) 6 SCC 122

¶103

14

¶104

Fifthly - Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.

¶105

Sixthly - Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.

¶106

Seventhly - Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.

¶107

Eightlhly - Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.”

¶108

26 The deceased remained in hospital for about four days after being assaulted by the appellants. He had sustained fracture in leg and also on head and as such, the injuries caused by them can be termed as grievous in nature and as such the appellants deserve to be convicted and sentenced for causing grievous hurt which is provided in Section 325 of the IPC. The act of the appellants cannot be held to be homicidal in nature as they never had the intention to kill the deceased. The incident took place suddenly in a heat of passion. The appellants are young man aged 19 years and 33 years and had they intention to kill the deceased, they could have easily killed the deceased but they did not act in a cruel manner and were only enraged by the fact that the deceased had assaulted their maternal grandmother.

¶109

27 The Supreme Court in the matter of Ninaji Raoji Boudha and another v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1976) 2 SCC 117 held as under:-

¶110

“12. The evidence on record therefore went to show that the appellants did not have the common intention of giving a beating to Bhonaji when they reached his house for, as has been shown, they found him sitting outside the house on his 'oota' but passed him by in search of Samadhan who was dressing his injuries inside the house. Bhonaji asked Tulsi Ram Chowkidar to make a report and to get ready a bullock cart for going to the police station. It was then that injuries were inflicted on his person by the appellants Ninaji and Raoji. Out of those injuries, one was a forceful blow on the head which caused a depressed fracture and

¶111

15

¶112

fissures all over, and resulted in the ultimate death of Bhonaji. The other injuries were on the neck (back side), knees on the right elbow of the deceased and were simple injuries. As has been shown, there was no reliable evidence on the record to prove whether the fatal blow on the head was caused by Ninaji or Raoji. The other blows did not fall on any vital part of the body and, in the absence of evidence to establish that their common intention was to cause death, it appears that the appellants had the common intention of causing grievous injury with the lathi and the 'khunt'. They could therefore be convicted of an offence under Section 325 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and not Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. ”

¶113

28 The Supreme Court in the matter of Shaikh Karimullah alias Babu and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2009) 11 SCC 371 has held as under:-

¶114

“13. The records clearly show that no charge was framed in terms of Section 34 so far as the appellant is concerned. This position is fairly conceded by learned counsel for the respondent. It is also accepted that except PW 1 who stated that the appellant assaulted the deceased with a stick, the other purported eyewitnesses stated that the appellant had given fist-blow. Considering the evidence of the witnesses as brought on record the appropriate conviction would be in terms of Section 325 IPC and not Section 302 IPC. Custodial sentence of three years would meet the ends of justice.”

¶115

29 This Court in Gulab Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in AIROnline 2019 Chh 700, has observed as under:

¶116

“11. The appellant having already remained in jail for about five months during trial i.e. from 07.09.2009 to 16.02.2010, thereafter, for about one year and one month from 22.02.2011 to 18.03.2012, has thus undergone sentence of about one year six months. The above sentence already suffered by the appellant is considered adequate for the offence under Section 325 IPC. It is also to be mentioned that at the time of

¶117

16

¶118

commission of offence, the appellant was aged about 29 years and there is no previous criminal record of the appellant.

¶119

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC are set aside and instead, he is held guilty under Section 325 IPC and is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.”

¶120

30 Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid legal position, it is quite vivid that on the fateful day of incident, since the appellants had no intention of causing death but the injuries were so grievous that after four days, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The appellant-Balram Chandrakar had caused injuries with an iron pipe on the head of the deceased and the appellant Jhurwa @ Devcharan had caused injuries with a wooden stick on the leg of the deceased. This Court is of the opinion that the appellants cannot be convicted for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC. As such, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants herein are set aside.

¶121

31 The appellant- Balram Chandrakar is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC . As he has already undergone a period of about six years of jail sentence, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. So far as the appellant- Jhurwa @ Devcharan is concerned, he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and as he has also undergone jail sentence of about 2½ years, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶122

32 The appellant-Balram Chandrakar is stated to be in jail. He is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. However, keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C., the appellant-Balram Chandrakar is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount before the court

¶123

17

¶124

concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.

¶125

33 So far as the appellant-Jhurwa @ Devcharan is concerned, he is on bail. He need not surrender. However, his bail bonds shall remain effective for a period of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. for a period of six months from today.

¶126

34 The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶127

35 Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentences to serve the same on the appellants informing him that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

¶128

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

¶129

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶130

Amit

¶131

AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.01.27 19:39:48 +0530

Balram Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram Chandrakar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhav Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shambhu Sharan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Viyata Chanda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pramod Dansena Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Siddharth Sarda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh