Rambilas Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:8722

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 384 of 2007

¶6

1 - Rambilas Singh, aged about 26 years, son of Ramprasad Singh, resident of village Narayanpur, P.S. Ramanujnagar, District Surguja (C.G). ... Appellant

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Ramanujnagar, District Surguja (C.G) ... Respondent

¶9

For Appellant	: Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
	A.N. Bhakta, Advocate
For the State	: Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer.

¶10

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶11

Judgment on Board

¶12

(19.02.2025)

¶13

1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.04.2007 passed in Sessions Case No. 215 of 2006 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Surajpur whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

¶14

Digitally A signed by ANNAJEE A RAO ANNAJEE RAO

¶15

2

¶16

U/s 435 of	IPC	:	03 years RI and Rs.1000/- fine, in
(converted Section 436	from to		default of payment of fine, 1 month
Section 435 IPC	)		additional RI

¶17

However, by the said impugned judgment the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant under sections 427 & 506 (B) of IPC.

¶18

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 22.2.2006 at 7.30 p.m., Ramesh Kumar Sahu , son of complainant Rambilas Sahu was sitting in his grocery shop. At that time, accused Rambilas Singh & P.W.7 Bhupsay had a dispute over money in his grocery shop. Then accused Rambilas Singh started abusing P.W.4 Bhupsay. When Ramesh Sahu, son of complainant Rambilas Sahu stopped him from abusing accused, Rambilas Singh got angry and threatened to murder complainant’s son Ramesh and also threatened to burn his shop. Thereafter, on the same day, when Ramesh closed his shop and went home, accused Rambilas Singh went to grocery shop of Ramesh and poured petrol through the hole below the door shutter and set it on fire, due to which, grocery items, telephone, counter, Almirah etc., got burnt. Accused Rambilas Singh was seen pouring petrol on himself and setting himself on fire by P.W.8 Rajesh Kumar sahu the second son of the complainant Rambilas Sahu. P.W.8 Rajesh Kumar chased the accused Rambilas Singh but the accused Rambilas Singh fled. Then P.W.4 Rambilas Sahu lodged the FIR at 9.30 p.m., on the date of incident at P.S. Ramanujnagar. After completing the investigation and

¶19

3

¶20

other procedural formalities, charge sheet was filed.

¶21

3. The prosecution has in all examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, the accused has also examined 1 witness and exhibited 3 documents. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 435 IPC. Hence this appeal.

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 3 years awarded to him, he has already remained in jail for about 1 year and 3 months. The incident took place in December, 2006 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. The appeal is pending since 2007. Hence, it is prayed that by enhancing the fine amount, the sentence of the appellant of the above offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice.

¶23

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel has supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant.

¶24

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.

¶25

4

¶26

7. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of complainant Rambilas Sahu (P.W.4), Bhup Sai (P.W.7) with whom the dispute was initially raised by accused; Ramesh Kumar (P.W.5) to whom the accused threatened to kill him and burn the grocery shop; Rajesh Kumar Sahu (P.W.8), who established 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 the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 435 IPC.

¶27

8. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in 2006 about 18 years ago and further considering the fact that the maximum sentence awarded to him is RI for 3 years, out of which, he has already remained in jail for about 1 year and 3 months and is facing the lis since 2006 and further no criminal antecedents are reported against him, in the interest of justice and in considered opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant from R.I. for 3 years to the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year & 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 435 IPC. However, the fine amount for the above offence is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- which shall be payable by the Appellant before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo additional RI for 6 months. Any amount of fine, if already, deposited, by the appellant shall be adjusted in the amount of fine imposed on him today by this Court. It is ordered accordingly.

¶28

5

¶29

9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶30

10. The appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC.

¶31

11. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action.

¶32

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶33

Rao

Rambilas Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambilas Singh 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

Bisouha Ram Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sakir Ansari @ Chhotu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh