Mantu @ Montu Shrivas Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CRA No. 190 of 2016

2025:CGHC:53873

NAFR

Digitally RAHUL signed byRAHULJHA JHA Date:2025.11.06 18:39:41 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRA No. 190 of 2016

¶8

1 - Mantu @ Montu Shrivas S/o Prem Shrivas Aged About 23 Years 20 Years, R/o Jailgaon Chowk, Darri, P.S. Darri, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Prem Thakur Shrivas S/o Anandi Thakur Aged About 58 Years 55 Year, R/o Jailgaon Chowk, Darri, P.S. Darri, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Petitioner(s)

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Of Police Station A J A K, P.S. Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Jyoti Chandravanshi on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. AG

¶16

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

¶17

04/11/2025

¶18

This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/01/2016 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 17/2013 by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Korba

¶19

2

¶20

CRA No. 190 of 2016

¶21

(C.G.) whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶22

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 325/34 of the Indian Penal	Rigorous imprisonment of two
Code	years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, with
	default stipulation.

¶23

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.03.2013, the complainant Kanhaiya Lal Sonwani and accused Mondar Dokri were having food together at the Dokri Hotel and conversing with each other. During this time, the accused Montu arrived there and started hurling filthy abuses at the complainant, including obscene words referring to his mother and sister, and also threatened to kill him. He further insulted the complainant by uttering caste-related abuses and assaulted him with a wooden stick, causing injuries. Meanwhile, the father of accused Montu namely Prem Thakur, also reached the spot and joined in abusing and threatening the complainant with caste-related insults. Thereafter, both the accused persons together again assaulted the complainant Kanhaiya Lal Sonwani with hands, fists, kicks, and a wooden stick, as a result of which the complainant sustained a fracture in his leg and became unconscious at the spot. He was thereafter taken to the hospital at Korba for treatment. The incident was witnessed by Shekhar, the hotel owner Dokri, and some other persons, who also intervened and separated the parties.

¶24

3

¶25

CRA No. 190 of 2016

¶26

Subsequently, on the report lodged by complainant Kanhaiya Lal Sonwani at Police Station Dardi, a First Information Report was registered as Crime No. 0/13 for offences under Sections 294, 323, 506/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Later, the case was transferred to AJAK Police Station, Korba, where it was again registered as Crime No. 5/13 under the same provisions and taken up for investigation. During investigation, the medical examination and X-ray of the complainant were conducted, and statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded. Caste and residence certificates of the complainant were seized, and a spot map was prepared. From witness Triveni Yadav, a wooden plank used in the assault was seized, and a query report was obtained from the doctor. The accused persons were arrested and arrest memos prepared. Upon completion of the investigation, finding sufficient evidence of the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellants. The charges were framed.

¶27

To prove the charges, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses, and produced several documentary and material exhibits. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter.

¶28

The Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, by the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal.

¶29

4

¶30

CRA No. 190 of 2016

¶31

Ms. Jyoti Chandravanshi, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case and that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is not sustainable. In the alternative, he submits that the appellants have no criminal antecedents and have remained on bail without misuse of liberty granted by this Court. Hence, they may be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.

¶32

Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, learned Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submit that the conviction of the appellants is well founded and does not call for any interference.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove, and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶34

To substantiate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, it is necessary to carefully examine the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

¶35

PW2- Dr. P. P. Singh deposed that injured Kanhaiyalal Sonwani was brought before him for medical examination by Constable No. 176 Rajesh Chandra of Police Station AJAK. On examination, one identification mark a black mole was found on the right middle finger of

¶36

5

¶37

CRA No. 190 of 2016

¶38

the injured. The injured informed him that on 17/03/2013, between 2:00 and 2:30 p.m., at Nilgiri Basti, he was assaulted with hard and blunt objects by hands and legs, and that due to the assault, he remained unconscious for about an hour. He also stated that he had received preliminary treatment at Korba Hospital.

¶39

On external examination, the following injuries were found:

¶40

Swelling and contusion on the left side of the forehead measuring 4 cm × 2 cm.

¶41

Swelling over the left and front portion of the chest, with pain as reported by the injured.

¶42

Swelling and contusion over the lower front part of the left leg measuring 3 cm × 1 cm, with a crude plaster applied on the leg.

¶43

He advised X-ray examination of the injuries on the chest and left leg. The injuries were found to be within 24 to 30 hours old. He stated that a definite opinion regarding the nature of injuries could be given only after receiving the X-ray report. The report prepared and signed by him is Ex. P-2, bearing his signature from point A to A. Further, on 16/04/2013, a wooden plank (Patra) was produced before him for examination. The said plank measured 35 inches in length, half an inch in width, and one inch in thickness. Upon examination, he opined that the injuries noted in MLC report Ex. P-2 could possibly be caused by the said plank. The report in this regard was written and signed by him and is marked as Ex. P-3, containing a sketch of the plank.

¶44

6

¶45

CRA No. 190 of 2016

¶46

In cross-examination, he stated that the injuries sustained by the injured could also be possible if he had slipped or fallen from a motorcycle. The first injury on the forehead could be possible if a person fell forward while sitting on a bench. Chest injury and leg sprain could also result from a fall. He clarified that the statement about unconsciousness was recorded as narrated by the injured himself, and that when the injured was brought before him, he was in a normal condition and fully conscious.

¶47

Dr. Premish Verma deposed that he was posted as a Radiologist at District Hospital, Korba. On the said date, Dr. P.P. Singh had advised X- ray examination of the left leg and chest of the injured, Kanhaiyalal Sonwani. Accordingly, X-rays of the left leg and chest were taken by the technician of the Radiology Department. The X-ray plate was numbered K-L 199 M. On examination of the said X-ray plate, he found that there was a fracture in the bone of the left leg of the injured, whereas no fracture was detected in the chest. He prepared and submitted his report in this regard, which is marked as Ex. P-4, bearing his signature from point A to A. Two X-ray plates are attached with the said report.

¶48

In cross-examination, he stated that the X-ray of Kanhaiyalal was taken by the technician. At the time of taking the X-ray, he does not usually remain present in the X-ray room. The details of X-ray examinations conducted are entered in the hospital register. He did not bring the said register on that day as it was not called for, but he can produce it if directed. He denied the suggestion that the fracture found in

¶49

7

¶50

CRA No. 190 of 2016

¶51

the injured’s leg was of a minor nature. He admitted that such a fracture could also be possible in the event of a fall or collision.

¶52

PW4- Triveni Yadav stated that she runs “Yadav Hotel” at Jailgaon Chowk, which operates from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. About four to five months before the incident, around 1:30–2:00 p.m., Kanhaiyalal, Shekhar, and accused Mantu Srivastava were having food at her hotel. During that time, Mantu remarked that “Chhattisgarhi people are illiterate,” to which Kanhaiyalal replied that “Bihari people are quarrelsome,” stating he had been to Bihar. She stated that after this, all of them left the hotel while she remained there. She clarified there was no broken wooden plank in her hotel. About ten benches were kept in good condition. Article-A, the wooden plank, was part of a bench near the hotel entrance and was seized by police from inside her hotel. She admitted having kept the plank inside after the incident and denied that it was picked up from the roadside. She further stated that police had questioned her, though she could not read or understand the document where her thumb impression was taken. She denied that the accused had not abused or assaulted Kanhaiyalal.

¶53

PW7- Injured- Kanhaiyalal Sonwani stated about two to three years ago, during summer, he went with his friend Raju to “Dokri Hotel” at Jailgaon Chowk for lunch, where the accused were also eating. The accused began abusing, and when he asked Mantu to stop, Mantu threw a plastic chair at him, hitting his head. As he stepped outside, Mantu dragged him by the collar and struck him from behind with a stick,

¶54

8

¶55

CRA No. 190 of 2016

¶56

causing him to fall unconscious. Soon after, Prem Thakur also came with a stick and beat him, causing head and leg injuries, resulting in a fracture. He stated that the accused abused him using caste-based slurs, humiliating him in public. He belongs to a Scheduled Caste, while the accused are Srivastava by caste. He lodged a report at Police Station Dari (Ex. P-4) and received treatment at District Hospital, Korba. His caste certificate is Ex. P-5.

¶57

In cross-examination, he denied being drunk or misbehaving. He stated that Mantu alone started the quarrel and that Prem arrived later. He denied that no assault occurred, maintaining that he was hit by a chair and then with a stick, after which he fainted for about ten minutes.

¶58

From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-2 Dr. P.P. Singh, PW-3 Dr. Premish Verma, PW-4 Triveni Yadav, and injured PW-7 Kanhaiyalal Sonwani, it stands established that the injured sustained a fracture on his left leg and other contusions on the head and chest in the incident that occurred at “Dokri Hotel”, Jailgaon Chowk. The ocular version of the injured finds full corroboration from the medical and radiological reports.

¶59

The testimony of PW-7, being an injured witness, inspires confidence and bears intrinsic truth. His statement that accused Mantu Srivastava first threw a plastic chair at him and thereafter, along with Prem Thakur, assaulted him with a stick causing fracture, is consistent and supported by medical evidence.

¶60

9

¶61

CRA No. 190 of 2016

¶62

PW-2 Dr. P.P. Singh, who examined the injured soon after the occurrence, noticed multiple contusions and swelling and advised X-ray of the chest and left leg. PW-3 Dr. Premish Verma, the Radiologist, confirmed fracture of the left leg bone on examination of X-ray Plate No. K-L 199 M. Their combined medical opinion corroborates the nature and timing of the injuries as narrated by PW-7.

¶63

PW-4 Triveni Yadav, the hotel owner, has also supported the material part of the prosecution case, stating that the accused and the injured were present at her hotel and a verbal exchange took place before they left. She further confirmed that Article-A, the wooden plank seized by police, belonged to a bench from inside her hotel, thereby lending circumstantial support to the prosecution story.

¶64

The defence plea that the injuries were accidental or due to a fall stands belied by the consistent evidence of the injured and the corroborating medical reports. Minor discrepancies pointed out during crossexamination are inconsequential and do not affect the core of the prosecution case.

¶65

On an overall assessment, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW-7 Kanhaiyalal Sonwani by means of a hard and blunt object. The conviction of the appellants under Section 325/34 IPC is, therefore, wellfounded and calls for no interference.

¶66

10

¶67

CRA No. 190 of 2016

¶68

So far as the sentence part is concerned, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the incident occurred, the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 2013, and that the appellants have no previous criminal antecedents and have already remained in custody for about thirty days, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellants have remained on bail and have not misused the liberty granted to them. The incident appears to have been the result of a sudden altercation arising out of a land dispute.

¶69

Keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet, (2009) 13 SCC 478, wherein leniency was extended considering the long passage of time and payment of fine to the victim, this Court finds it appropriate to take a similar view. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to the period already undergone. However, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to ₹7,500/- under Section 325/34 of the IPC against each of the appellants. Accordingly, the total fine amount for both the appellants shall come to ₹15,000/- (₹7,500 x 2), adjusting any amount already deposited before the trial Court. The said fine shall be deposited by the appellants before the trial Court within a period of one month failing which they shall

¶70

11

¶71

CRA No. 190 of 2016

¶72

undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The said fine amount so deposited shall be disbursed to injured Kanhaiyalal as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶73

With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the appeal stands partly allowed.

¶74

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.

¶75

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.

¶76

Sd/-

¶77

(Bibhu Datta Guru)

¶78

Judge

¶79

Rahul/Gowri

Mantu @ Montu Shrivas v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mantu @ Montu Shrivas 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

In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoranjan Kumar Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Malhotra Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajano and Ors.

Raju Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Abated (Girdhari Shastri) Vs State Of Chhattisgarh