Bisouha Ram Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2007 passed by the learned 09^th Additional Session Judge (FTC), Raipur, DistrictRaipur (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 426/2006 whereby the learned Session Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

¶16

Conviction	Sentence
	R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.
U/s 326 of IPC	500/-, in default of payment of fine
	amount additional R.I. for 01 month.

¶17

2

¶18

	R.I. for 02	years with fine of
U/s 325 of IPC	Rs.500/-, in fine amount	default of payment of additional R.I. for 01
	month.

¶19

(Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently)

¶20

2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant namely Ram Bai had been ill for three years and was undergoing treatment, but she was not recovering. On the suspicion that someone was casting a spell on her, on 23.09.2006 at about 08 am, she was abusing someone at her home when the accused Bisaharam arrived with an iron rod, believing that Ram Bai was abusing him. With the intention of killing her, he struck her on the head with the rod, causing serious injuries. When the daughter of Ram bai Lalita intervened, the accused also assaulted her with the rod, causing injuries. When the incident was going on, one of the witness Raja Ram was intervened and separate them to each other. Thereafter, the complainant has lodged report against the present appellant at Police Station-Mandir Hasoud and the offence was registered against the present appellant under Section 307 of IPC.

¶21

3 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecutrix has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

¶22

4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2007, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present

¶23

3

¶24

appeal.

¶25

5 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2006, and thereby more than 18 years have rolled by since then and compromise has taken place between the victim and the appella2nt. At present, the appellant is aged about more than 56 years and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 06 months 14 days, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

8 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Complainant (PW-1), Punitram (PW-4), Rajendra Kumar (PW-5), S.R. Kosariya (PW-9), Dr. K.S. Rai (PW10) and Dhanesh Dhruv (PW-11), establish the involvement of the appellant 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 appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 325 and 326 of IPC.

¶29

9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that a compromise application has been filed by the complainant before the trial Court but looking to the charge of 307 of IPC, the same has been rejected, further, considering the fact that the incident had taken place on

¶30

4

¶31

23.09.2006 about more than 18 years ago and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 06 months 14 days, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶32

10 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back the appellant to jail. Hence, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e., 06 months 14 days instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 03 years for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and for 02 years for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC. However, the fine amount imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact.

¶33

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

¶34

12 Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶35

13 Record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

¶36

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶37

Sourabh P.

Bisouha Ram Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bisouha Ram Kurre 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

Chhotelal Yadav and Anr. Vs State of Chattisgarh

Milan Prasad Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravishankar Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rambilas Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sakir Ansari @ Chhotu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh