Rajesh Kumar @ Bhopali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed bySOURABH SOURABH PATEL PATEL Date:2025.02.14 17:59:05 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:7835

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 458 of 2008

¶7

Rajesh Kumar @ Bhopali S/o Shatrughan Prasad Verma, Aged about 28 years, Occupation Conductor, R/o Akhara, Police Station Patan, Presently Bemetara, Brahaman Para, Ward No. 4 Bemetara, P.S. Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.).

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bemetara DistrictDurg (C.G.).

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

: For Appellant Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

¶14

13/02/2025

¶15

1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Durg C.G. in Special Session Case No. 30/2006, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

¶16

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 354 of IPC.	R.I. for 02years.
U/s 323 of IPC	Fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of

¶17

2

¶18

payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 03 months.

¶19

2 The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix runs a shoe polish shop behind the Sheetla Temple in Bemetara. On 23.02.2006, at about 08 Pm while closing her shop and heading home, the prosecutrix was suddenly assaulted by the accused, who grabbed her arm and breast. Thereafter, he pushed the prosecutrix to the ground injuring her right hand, leg and also tearing her blouse. The prosecutrix screamed, and the accused fled from the place of incident. Subsequently, prosecutrix reported the incident and filed a complaint at the Police Station and offense was registered against the present appellant U/s 323, 354 of IPC and U/s 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.

¶20

3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecutions have examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 06 documents. The statement of the appellant was 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.

¶21

4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2008, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the appellant has been convicted for the offense as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶22

5 Learned counsel 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

¶23

3

¶24

then. At present, the appellant is aged more than 46 years and he has already remained in jail for about 34 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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

8 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Dr. M.S. Devghar (PW-02), Prosecutrix (PW-5), Pawan Nirmalkar (PW-6) 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 the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC.

¶28

9 As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 23.02.2006 about more than 18 years ago, he is currently aged about more than 46 years and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the appellant has no previous criminal antecedents and he has already remained in jail for about 34 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.

¶29

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., 34 days instead of rigorous imprisonment for 02 years for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. However, the fine amount imposed upon

¶30

4

¶31

the appellant by the trial Court for the offence punishable U/s 323 of IPC shall remain intact.

¶32

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

¶33

12 Appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶34

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

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Sourabh P.

Rajesh Kumar @ Bhopali v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar @ Bhopali 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

Premsingh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chakradhari Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suklal @ Sukhlal Tandon Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajneesh Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deleted (Lakhan) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raju Anchal Vs State of Chhattisgarh