Raju @ Sharukh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

This appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short CrPC) has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.05.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Raipur, CG in Sessions Trial No. 09/2007. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned

¶14

below:-

¶15

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 325/34 IPC	RI for 01 year and fine of Rs. 500/-. on failure to pay fine among RI four months
Under Section 427 IPC	RI for 06 months and fine of Rs. 200/-,
	on failure to pay RI two months

¶16

2

¶17

2. Admitted facts in this case is that the complainant (PW-3) and appellant, both of them are taxi drivers and earn their livelihood by driving taxi. They are known to each other before the incident.

¶18

On the date of incident, the complainant/ Bhudharu Dhruv (PW-3) received grievous injuries on his head and hand and he was preliminarily treated in Bhatapara and thereafter in Mekahara Hospital, Raipur. It is also admitted that charge-sheet against the appellant and the another co-accused Juvenile-conflict-with-law was filed in the Juvenile Court, Raipur, CG. 4. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on the date of incident i.e. 13.09.2006 at about 2 PM, the appellant was filthily abusing the complainant (PW-3) and another taxi driver at Kalyansagar road. He broke the slide glass of the jeep bearing CG 04 -7 JD-6735 driven by the complainant. On being objected, he threatened the complainant of dire consequences and along with his brother Juvenile-conflict-with-law assaulted him with the help of bamboo stick, as a result of which the complainant received injuries on his head, both hands and legs. The complainant was taken to hospital on jeep by the witnesses and on his report crime was registered and investigation was set at motion. The complainant was referred to Ambedkar hospital, Raipur from Government hospital Bhatapara and he was admitted from 13.09.2006 to 21.09.2006. X-ray of the injuries of the complainant was conducted and as per X-ray report, fracture was found on the right hand of the complainant. Appellant was arrested on the same day and was sent on judicial remand whereas accused Juvenile-conflict-with-law was produced before the juvenile Court, Raipur. Necessary articles were seized, statement were recorded, spot map was prepared. After medical examination seized articles were sent to FSL, Raipur for chemical analysis. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

¶19

The appellant was charged for offence punishable under Sections 294,427, 325/34 and 307/34 IPC and he denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

¶20

The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded where he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. On assessment of evidence and material available on record, the learned trial Court

¶21

3

¶22

acquitted the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 294, 337/34 IPC however, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and award of sentence is bad in law and contrary to the evidence on record. He submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence brought before it on its proper perspective and erroneously convicted the appellant. He further submits that majority of contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted from all the charges. Alternatively, he submits that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is of one year and appellant had remained in jail for more than 5 months. He further submits that the incident took place in the year 2006 and since then, the appellant is facing the lis. He submits that the appellant has not misused the liberty and he was granted bail by the trial Court and his sentence was also suspended by this Court. He was aged about 27 years at the time of commission of offence who by now, must has reached an advance age, his reform in the society cannot be ruled out and his freedom is not detrimental to the society. Therefore, he submits that in the event the Court is not inclined to set aside the conviction, the sentence part may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶24

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned to be in accordance with law and the evidence led by the parties, and being so, no interference in this appeal is required. She further submits that on due assessment of the evidence, the learned trial Court gave a categorical finding of conviction under Section 325/34 IPC and therefore, the meritorious finding recorded by the trial Court does not require any interference by this Court. She further submits that from the evidence of the complainant, involvement of the present appellant is established as he also suffered fracture which is also substantiated by the statement of

¶25

4

¶26

the doctor and the manner in which offence has been committed, no legality should be shown to the appellant and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. The first point for determination before this Court is as to whether the appellant is the author of the crime or not. In this context, it is relevant to scrutinize the statement of the complainant (PW-3). In his statement, he has deposed that he knows the appellant. About 6-7 months ago at 2 - 2:30 PM the appellant was intoxicated and demanded to drive his jeep and when he did not give the key the appellant broke the slide glass of the jeep and filthily abused him. Thereafter, he made a assault on the appellant and went away. After 10-15 minutes, he along with another person came holding stick in their hands and thereafter both of them assaulted the complainant. He further deposed that he sustained injuries on his head, right leg and above the elbow. He further deposed that he was taken to the hospital and doctor stitched on his head and thereafter he was referred to Raipur for treatment. He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination. Nothing substantive is brought on record to disbelieve his statement.

¶28

Dr. R. Maheshwari (PW-9) is the person who initially treated the appellant and found the following injuries on the person of the complainant (PW-3).

¶29

The crushed wound was in the centre of the spine, measuring about 6.6×0.5 cm. which appeared to have come from a hard and blunt object. For this injury, I advised to get an X-ray of the head done. There was a swelling of 6x3 cm in the right elbow of the child. This injury also appeared to be caused by a blunt object, for which an X-ray was advised. He further deposed that the patient was unconscious and was vomiting. Looking to his condition he was referred to Raipur. He further deposed that in X-ray report, he found a fracture on the upper side of right ulna bone. No fracture was found on the head. He further deposed that the injury No.1 was simple in nature and injury No.2 was grievous in nature and gave his report (Ex. P-13). He also gave a

¶30

5

¶31

report that the injuries can be caused by the seized article i.e. bamboo stick. Of course, there are some contradictions and omissions in the statement of PW-3 but the person has sustained the injuries which is also corroborated by the medical evidence and there is no occasion for him to falsely implicate the present appellant. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he has not committed the offence is not acceptable. The learned trial Court relied upon the statement of this witness to hold the conviction. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court does not appear to be contrary to the evidence brought on record, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 325/34 and 427 IPC is hereby maintained.

¶32

As regards sentence, looking to the fact that the accused/appellant remained on bail during the trial as also during the pendency of this appeal; that no criminal antecedent is brought to the notice of this Court against the accused/appellant; that the accused/appellant, by now, must have reached an advanced age, that he remained in jail more than 5 months, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in further making him remain in jail and the interest of justice would be served if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period undergone. Fine sentence however is liable to be left undisturbed. Order accordingly. 14. Copy of this judgment and record be sent back. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds will remain in operation for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023.

¶33

Appeal thus allowed in part.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Pawan

Raju @ Sharukh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Sharukh 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

Dinesh Upadhyay Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mohit Ram and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Diwan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narmada Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Champa Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mangalnath @ Mangara Vs State of Chhattisgarh