Samayjan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:11550

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 245 of 2024

¶6

1 - Samayjan S/o Mo. Rajjak, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Durti, P.S. Pratappur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Emran S/o Mohd. Samayjan, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Durti, P.S. Pratappur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Masoom, S/o. Mo. Khalil Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Marhatta, P.S. Pratappur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

4 - Sahabuddin S/o Mohd. Rajak, Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Marhatta, P.S. Pratappur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Appellants

¶11

versus

¶12

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station Station House Officer, Police Station Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

---- Respondent

¶14

For Appellants : Mr. DN Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board

¶16

07.03.2025

¶17

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

¶18

2

¶19

29.11.2023, passed by learned Session Judge, Pratappur, DistSurajpur, (CG) in Sessions Trial No.30/2021, whereby appellants stand convicted and sentence as under:

¶20

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 323/34 of the IPC.	Fine of Rs. 1000-1000/- in default of payment of fine 1-1 months S.I. (to all the appellants for inflicting injury upon injured Devanti Yadav)
Under Section 323/34 of the IPC.	Fine of Rs. 1000-1000/- in default of payment of fine 1-1 months S.I. (to all the appellants for inflicting injury upon injured Ishwar Yadav)

¶21

The prosecution case, in brief, is this that the appellants have installed the iron angle in the field. On 19.11.2019, complainant Vijay Yadav was bringing the said iron angle, which was seen by the appellant Vicky @ Emran and, thereafter, appellants have abused and assaulted the complainant and his wife Devanti & son Umesh Yadav & Ishwar Yadav.

¶22

Based upon report of complainant, FIR was registered against the appellants for offence under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 of IPC.

¶23

On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed against the appellants and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against them.

¶24

3

¶25

Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 09 witnesses. Statement of appellants (accused) were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied all incriminating evidence appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by them in their defence.

¶26

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that on the date of alleged incident, complainant Vijay Yadav and his wife and sons (Devantin Yadav, Umesh Yadav & Ishwar) have abused and assaulted the present appellants, they inflicted grievous hurt upon the appellants by means of stone, club and Axe with intention to kill them as the appellants have restrained the complainant parties from taking away the iron angle installed by them in the field. Due to injuries inflicted by the complainant parties, appellants Nos.1, 2 & 4 were admitted in Government Hospital, Pratappur and looking to their injuries, the doctor referred them to Medical College, Ambikapur for better treatment. Based upon report lodged by the appellants/injured,

¶28

4

¶29

offence under Sections 294, 506 (Part-2), 323, 307/34 of IPC were registered against the complainant Vijay Yadav, his wife Devanti Yadav and sons. On the basis of memorandum of complainant Vijay Yadav recorded in counter crime no.174/2019, the used Axe, stone, ace brick and bamboo stick have been seized from him.

¶30

Learned Counsel further contended that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellants have not inflicted any injuries upon the complainant Vijay Yadav and his wife Devanti Yadav. The learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellants only on the basis of evidence of interested witnesses, whereas material/independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. There is no evidence/material available on record to hold the conviction of the appellants under aforementioned offence. There are many contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, which were not considered properly by learned trial court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence awarded deserves to be set-aside.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the above submission of counsel for the appellants and supports the impugned judgment.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the recorded placed on record.

¶33

5

¶34

With regard to the alleged incident, complainant PW-1/Vijay Yadav in his Court evidence has stated that on the date of alleged incident, due to land dispute, appellants have abused and assaulted him by the foot and hands & fists. When his wife Devanti, son Ishwar Yadav and Umesh Yadav tied to intervene, they have also been abused and assaulted by means of bricks, stones and iron rod.

¶35

The above evidence of complaint/PW-1 is also supported by PW-2/Ishwar Yadav, PW-3/Umesh Yadav & PW-6/Devanti Yadav.

¶36

PW-7/Dr. A.K. Vishwakarma in his Court evidence has stated that he has examined the injured Ishwar Yadav and found that there is lacerated wound in his forehead (1.5 cm X 0.5 cm) which may be caused by any sharp/blunt object. PW-7/Dr. Vishwakarma also examined Devanti Yadav/PW-6 and found pain & tenderness in teeth and tenderness in chest, swalling, hence, injuries of PW-6 are simple in nature. Hence, injuries of PW-2 & PW-6 are supported by medical evidence.

¶37

With regard to the submission that complainant- Vijay Yadav and his wife and sons (Devantin Yadav, Umesh Yadav & Ishwar) have abused and assaulted the present appellants by means of stone, club and Axe with intention to kill them, Counsel for the appellants could not produce any evidence/material in this regard before this Court, therefore, it is not established that complainant parties are aggressor.

¶38

6

¶39

Considering facts of the case, nature of offence, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the evidence of complaint/PW-1, PW-2/Ishwar Yadav, PW-3/Umesh Yadav & PW-6/Devanti Yadav, PW-7/Dr. A.K. Vishwakarma and other evidence/material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentence the appellants for the aforementioned offence/crime, hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment.

¶40

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶41

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

¶42

Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

¶43

J/-

Samayjan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samayjan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abc (Juvenile in Conflict With Law) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinay Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anjani Kumar Shriwas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ankit Kumar Dheemar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Santra Bai Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh