Neelam Bose and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:3211

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No.586 of 2004

¶6

Neelam Bose, S/o Late Subhash Chand Bose, aged about 24 years 2. Rajendra Bose, S/o Late Subhash Chand Bose, aged about 27 years All R/o Rajendra Nagar, Thana Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA

¶8

Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

CRA No.880 of 2005

¶13

1 - Raja @ Rajendra, S/o Pardesi Ram Yadav, aged about 18 years, R/o Rajendra Nagar, PS Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, through PS Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)

¶17

Respondent(s)

¶18

For Appellants : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Asha, PL

¶19

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Order on Board

17/01/2025

2

Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, therefore, the same have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.

¶24

The present appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.06.2004 passed by the learned 4^th Additional Session Judge (FTC), Raipur in Session Trial No.427/2003, whereby the appellants Neelam and Rajendra Bose have been convicted under Sections 307 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and 6 months, respectively with default stipulations, whereas the appellant Raja @ Rajendra has been convicted under Section 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with default stipulations.

¶25

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the date of incident, when Banti @ Ramkumar was watching dance in Ganesh Festival with his friend Shailesh Chouhan, the accused persons came and were committing maarpeet with him and when the complainant Shailesh Chouhan came to intervene, then the accused Neelam assaulted him with knife on his chest, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in the hospital for about 40 days and the complainant Shailesh Chouhan also sustained injuries, thereafter the matter was reported to the concerned police station. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate

¶26

3

¶27

concerned.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. There is previous enmity between the injured persons and the accused persons. The complainant had misbehaved with the sister of the appellants and for that purpose the sister of appellant Nos.1 & 2 lodged report against the complainant and in vengeance, the complainant lodged FIR against the appellants. There is contradiction in the statement of eye witness (PW-1) and the injured (PW-9). She further submits that only one single injury was sustained by the complainant, which is simple in nature, therefore, the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out against the appellants. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside.

¶29

Alternatively,

¶30

She submits that the incident took place in the year 2003 and at that time, the appellants were in their twenties and these appeals are pending since 2004-05 and the appellant Neelam Bose has already completed the entire jail sentence and the other appellants are middle aged persons and the appellant Raja has remained in jail for about 20 months, whereas the appellant Rajendra has remained in jail for about 4 months, therefore, they

¶31

4

¶32

may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them.

¶33

Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶35

It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused Neelam under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 (1) and 27 (1) of the Arms Act and against the accused Raja and Rajendra framed charges under Section 307/34 of IPC and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned in para 2 of the judgment.

¶36

It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the injured Banti @ Ramkumar (PW-9) stated that on the date of incident, when he was watching dance in Ganesh Festival with his friend Shailesh Chouhan, the accused persons came and were committing maarpeet with him and when the complainant Shailesh Chouhan came to intervene, then the accused Neelam assaulted him with knife on his chest, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in the hospital for

¶37

5

¶38

about 40 days and the complainant Shailesh Chouhan had lodged report against the appellants.

¶39

The complainant Shailesh Chouhan (PW-1) stated that on the date of incident, at the time of Ganesh festival, he was with Banti and they were watching dance, at that time the accused came and assaulted him and when Banti came to intervene, he was assaulted by the accused Neelam in his stomach by knife and went away, thereafter he lodged the report.

¶40

Dr. A. Bose (PW-3) examined the injured Banti and found one incised wound on his chest and he referred for surgery department and gave his report (Ex-P/4). On the same day, he also examined Shailesh Kumar and found swelling on his jaw and referred for dental department and gave his report (Ex-P/5). Dr. P. M. Luka (PW-11) stated that on 08.09.2003, he operated Banti and he was in serious condition. The injury was grievous and had the treatment not given to him on time, he would have died. He filed bed head ticket (Ex-P/14). In the crossexamination, he admitted that before operation, he advised for x- ray but looking to the condition of the patient, he did surgery immediately. It is clear from the statement of both the doctors that they only stated that on the date of incident, the complainant sustained injuries and Dr. Luka did surgery of patient Banti but no x-ray report or other report was filed by the prosecution, which may show that on the date of incident, the injured Banti sustained grievous injuries, but looking to the bed head ticket, it is clear that

¶41

6

¶42

the injured was admitted in hospital on 08.09.2003 and he was discharged on 18.10.2003 and as per Dr. Luka, he performed surgery of intestine.

¶43

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the statements of both the doctors and report of injured person, an offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out against the appellant instead an offence under Section 326 of IPC is made out against the appellant. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is altered from under Section 307 of IPC to Section 326 of IPC, however his conviction under Section 323 of IPC is maintained.

¶44

As regards sentence, it is clear that incident took place in the year 2003 and at that time, the appellants were in their twenties and these appeals are pending since 2004-05 and the appellant Neelam Bose has already completed the entire jail sentence and the other appellants are middle aged persons and the appellant Raja has remained in jail for about 20 months, whereas the appellant Rajendra has remained in jail for about 4 months, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellants Rajendra and Raja are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Accordingly, the appellants Rajendra and Raja are sentenced to the period already undergone by them.

¶45

The appeals are partly allowed.

¶46

The appellant Neelam has already completed the entire jail sentence, whereas the appellants Rajendra and Raja are on bail.

¶47

7

¶48

Their bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of 6 weeks from today.

¶49

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

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

Rajani Dubey Judge

¶52

Nirala

Neelam Bose and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Bose and Others 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

Naresh Kumar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pavitro Kumar Dehari Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Chief Executive Officer Vs Smt. Pratima Tiwari

Raja @ Rajendra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramji Patel and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raghunandan Vs Vinod Paswan