Gangaram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

2 Narendra Kumar S/o Raghunath Ram Rajwade Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Korja, Navapara, P.S. Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 Ramlallu S/o Tejuram Rajwade Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Korja, Navapara, P.S. Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Appellants

¶13

versus

¶14

State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Appellant : Mr. Pavas Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, P.L.

¶18

2 / 7

¶19

CRA No. 115 of 2016

¶20

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board

¶21

18/07/2025

¶22

This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.01.2016 passed in ST No. 72/2011 by the learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶23

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 324/34 of the Indian	R. I. For 1 year to each
Penal Code	appellants and fine of Rs.
	500 to each appellants, in
	default of payment of fine
	further S.I. of 1 month to
	each appellants.

¶24

Case of the prosecution in brief is that when the complainant went on his duty as a linemen at C.S.E.B, as per instruction given to him by his senior officer, to village Korja Navapara for repairing the electric lines, the appellants came there and on account of delay in repairing work, they have assaulted complainant Arun Dwivedi with hand, fist and lathi ultimately deterring him from discharging his public duty and also threatened him of life and used filthy language with intention to murder him.

¶25

During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. After framing the charges against the

¶26

3 / 7

¶27

CRA No. 115 of 2016

¶28

accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial.

¶29

In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter.

¶30

The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 14.01.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the whole case rest upon the circumstantial evidence where the prosecution has completely failed to prove the chain of circumstances to connect the appellants with the offence. He further submits that no identification parade was conducted and the appellants were made accused as they were known to the PW10 and further no seizure has been made by the appellants.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the conviction of the appellants are well merited which does not call for any interference.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶34

4 / 7

¶35

CRA No. 115 of 2016

¶36

9. The question for consideration is whether the accused persons jointly caused hurt to the victim by using dangerous weapons or means?

¶37

PW-9 victim stated in his examination in chief that in the month of October 2010, the 11000 KV power line of village Vinkara Navapara was faulty, for which he was sent by Junior Engineer Mr. Mishra to repair it. After repairing the line, he and Nagaraj were waiting for the line to be shut down. Meanwhile, Gangaram, Ramlallu and Narendra (accused) came on a motorcycle and asked us near the hotel on the roadside why the line was not started. He further stated that while talking, they took him to the roadside and one of those three pushed him. It was dark, so he could not see who pushed him. Due to the push, he fell into the ditch. After that, other people besides those three also came and beat him with hands, feet and shoes. He further stated that someone hit him on the head with a stick, due to which his head was torn and blood came out. He screamed, hearing which Nagraj who was washing his hands and face in the hotel came and other people from the village including Bhim also came.

¶38

He further in his cross examination stated that he recognize Gangaram, Lalluram and Narendra by face and name and know the rest of the accused by face only and he do not know the rest by name.

¶39

PW-5 Dr. P.S. Karkatta stated that certain injuries on the body of the injured Arun Dwivedi was found. The injuries are there was a

¶40

5 / 7

¶41

CRA No. 115 of 2016

¶42

3 x 1 inch cut injury from right forehead to temple. Swollen and blue-tinged injury on the right shoulder measuring 4 x 2 inches, left shoulder measuring 4 x 2 inches, left arm measuring 3 x 2 inches, right elbow measuring 2 x 2 inches, right wrist measuring 3 x 2 inches. A peeled injury on the right ankle measuring 1 x 1 inch. He further stated that according to his opinion, the injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt objects and he advised X-ray of head, right wrist and chest to know the nature of the injury and the MLC report given by him is Ex.P.9-A. He further stated that the injuries sustained were not life-threatening in the normal course of nature.

¶43

PW-10 namely Nagraj stated that after finishing the work, they came near Holi's hotel. He further stated that they were working to repair the line by shutting down the rural line that goes from the main line. Then after starting the line, they came back to Holi's hotel. By then it had become dark. Then the accused Gangaram, Narendra and Ramlallu came there and while talking to Arun Dwivedi with their hands on his shoulder, went to the other side of the road.

¶44

PW-15 Umesh Kumar Sahu stated that he is posted as SHO in the station Lakanpur and in cross examination he has stated that no identification parade was conducted by him in this case.

¶45

From the evidence adduced by the victim himself and the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record it is

¶46

6 / 7

¶47

CRA No. 115 of 2016

¶48

evident that appellants took the victim to the other side of the road and pushed him and thereafter other people joined and beaten him but due to dark he has not seen who has pushed him and the other people who have beaten him thus the learned trial Court after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶49

So far as, the sentence part is concerned, considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, the manner in which the incident occurred, the fact that the incident took place around 15 years ago, the age of the appellants at the relevant time was 35 years, 30 years and 41 years respectively; they have no criminal antecedents; during pendency of this appeal the appellants were on bail since 2016; and did not misuse the liberty granted to them and keeping in view the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet, (2009) 13 SCC 478, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellants back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served, if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them, i.e. appellant No. 1- 5 months 6 days, appellant No. 2- 5 months 6 days and appellant No. 3- 4 months 3 days.

¶50

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part . The appellants are convicted under Section 324/ 34 of IPC and the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶51

7 / 7

¶52

CRA No. 115 of 2016

¶53

The appellants are acquitted of the charges for which they were tried. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS.

¶54

The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶55

SD/- Sd/-

¶56

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶57

Gowri/ Jyoti

Gangaram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangaram 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

Vinay Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shashi Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lokesh Garg Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Praveen Kumar Bhardwaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhojdas Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Thethwar @ Tillu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh