Shivkumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Shivkumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed: conviction under Section 324 of IPC maintained; sentence of R.I. for 1 year reduced to the period already undergone (29 days); fine of Rs.1,000/- and its default stipulation retained; appellant, being on bail, need not surrender, and his bail bonds shall remain in force for six months in view of Section 437-A of the CrPC.

Issue for consideration

Legality, validity and correctness of the trial court's judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.06.2007 convicting the appellant under Section 324 of IPC. +1 more

Court's answer

The conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is affirmed; this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the trial court's finding, which is based on the evidence available on record.

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account that the incident occurred about 19 years ago, the appellant's present age and family responsibility, and that he has already remained in jail for about 29 days, it would not be appropriate to send him back to jail; the sentence of R.I. for 1 year is reduced to the period already undergone, i.e. 29 days.

Key takeaways

The fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial court shall remain intact.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (CRA No. 586 of 2007, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 06.03.2025, Coram: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal): Appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.06.2007 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur (Sessions Trial No. 88/2006), whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (default: additional R.I. 3 months) for assaulting Ramji with a spade at village Jujgu, P.S. Bagicha, District Jashpur on 24.04.2006. Counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal on merits and confined arguments to sentence, citing the 19-year pendency, the appellant's present age of about 53 years, family responsibilities and 29 days of custody already undergone. HELD: (i) conviction under Section 324 IPC affirmed — statements of injured Ramji (PW-3), complainant Belal Sen (PW-2), Dr. R.N. Dubey (PW-1) and reports Exs. P-1/P-2 establish involvement; no illegality or infirmity in the trial court's finding; (ii) sentence reduced to the period already undergone (29 days) in view of the passage of time, age and family responsibility; (iii) fine and default stipulation remain intact. Appeal partly allowed; appellant on bail need not surrender and bail bonds kept alive for six months under Section 437-A CrPC.

1

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.03.07 17:34:20 +0530

2025:CGHC:11148

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 586 of 2007

Shivkumar, S/o Rajnath Sai Painkra, aged about 34 years, R/o Village Jujgu, Thana And Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.)

... Appellant

versus

State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.)

... Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

06.03.2025

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.06.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 88/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of

2

payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 3 months.

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that, On April 24, 2006, the complainant, 13-year-old Belal Sain, was having lunch at his home in village Jujgu, police station Bagicha, in the afternoon. At that time, he heard a commotion outside. Upon coming out of his house and moving toward the appellant’s house, he saw that the appellant was telling his father that he had been troubling him and that he would not spare him alive. Thereafter, the appellant attacked his father with a small-sized spade that he was holding. The appellant struck Belal’s father, Ramji, on the left side of his chest, left and right eyes, forehead, and head, causing severe injuries. Following this assault, Belal informed his mother and villagers, including Jugeshwar and Surendra Sai, about the incident. Together with some other people, they took the injured Ramji in Pankaj Gupta’s Bolero vehicle to the Bagicha police station. There, Belal lodged an FIR, upon which a criminal case was registered. During the investigation, Ramji was sent for medical examination at the government hospital in Bagicha. Dr. R.N. Dubey examined him and given his medical report. The police visited the crime scene and prepared a site map (Exhibit P-5). Based on the memorandum statement of the appellant (Exhibit P-7), the police seized the weapon (a spade) used in the crime vide Exhibit P-8. After completion of investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence.

3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as

3

mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment.

5. 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 submits that the appellant is now aged about 53 years of age and has family responsibilities and he has already remained in jail for about 29 days. The incident took place in the year 2006 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. This appeal is pending since 2007. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant.

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

8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of injured Ramji (PW-3), his son/complainant Belal Sen (PW-2), Dr. R.N. Dubey (PW-1) and his reports (Exs. P-1 & P-2), establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed.

9. As regards the sentence part, the incident had taken place in the year 2006 i.e. about 19 years ago. At that time, the appellant was aged about 34 years and now he must be aged about 53 years having family responsibility. The appellant is facing the lis since 2006 and he has already remained in jail for about 29 days. Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to

4

send back the appellant to jail and the ends of justice would serve if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 324 of IPC is maintained and the sentence of RI for 1 year is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 29 days. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact.

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

12. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case. However, 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.

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

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

Shubham