Deleted (Lakhan) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2025:CGHC:7834

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 69 of 2008

¶6

Lakhan, Aged about 50 years, S/o Pachkaud Ram Yadav, R/o Village Sukulpara, Kharod, P.S. Sheorinarayan, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.). (Died and abated)

¶7

Buthallu @ Thanendra, Aged about 22 years, S/o Lakhan Yadav, R/o Village Sukulpara, Kharod, P.S. Sheorinarayan, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.).

¶8

Tharun @ Rajkumar, Aged about 24 years, S/o Lakhan Yadav, R/o Village Sukulpara, Kharod, P.S. Sheorinarayan, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.).

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh, through: P.S. Sheorinarayan, District- Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For Appellants : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L.

¶14

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

¶15

13/02/2025

¶16

1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2007 passed by the

¶17

2 / 4

¶18

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.134/2006 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:

¶19

Conviction	Sentence
	Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year
	with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of
U/s 324/34 of IPC	payment of fine amount additional
	R.I. for 03 month. (Each of the
	appellant).

¶20

2 As per order dated 21.03.2022 of this Court, Appellant No.1 (Lakhan Yadav) died on 12.07.2012 and appeal on his behalf has already been abated.

¶21

3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Sudhir Kumar had a long-standing feud with Lakhan Yadav, Buthallu Yadav, Tharun 2@ Rajkumar. On 02.11.2005 at about 10:30 pm, when Sudhir was sitting at home with his friend Parmeshwar, the accused persons arrived and started quarreling over the previous rivalry, threatening to kill Sudhir. Parmeshwar tried to intervene, but they didn’t listen. Thereafter, Lakhan attacked Sudhir with a tangi (axe) with the intention of killing him, striking his neck and causing bleeding. Family members of Sudhir, including his mother, wife, brother and others arrived and saw the accused persons assaulting Sudhir. The accused persons fled from the place of incident upon seeing them. Based on the above, a report was filed at the Police Station and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed and offence was registered U/s 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC against each of the appellants .

¶22

4 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. The statement of the appellants was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in

¶23

3 / 4

¶24

which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

¶25

5 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2007, learned Judge has acquitted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307/34, 323/34, 323/34, 323/34 and convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶26

6 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that they are 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 2005, and thereby more than 19 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant No. 2 is aged about more than 41 years and Appellant No. 3 is aged about more than 43 years and the appellants have already remained in jail for about 29 days, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

9 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Victim (PW-1), Parmeshwar (PW-2), Sushil Yadav (PW-4), Brihaspati Bai (PW-5), Hemlata (PW-7), Dr. M.L. Sahu (PW-13), Smt. Snehlata Kujur (PW-11), R.C. Nishad (PW-12) and K.P. Gupta (PW-13), establish the involvement of the

¶30

4 / 4

¶31

appellants in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 324/34 of IPC.

¶32

10 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 02.11.2005 more than 19 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellants have already remained in jail for about 29 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 them.

¶33

11 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back the appellants to jail. Hence, the appellants No. 2 & 3 are sentenced to the period already undergone by them i.e., 29 days instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 01 year for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of IPC. However, the fine amount imposed upon appellants No. 2 & 3 by the Trial Court shall remain intact. The fine, if any, deposited by the appellants shall be adjusted in the fine imposed by this Court today .

¶34

12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.

¶35

13 Appellants No. 2 & 3 are on bail. If the appellants have deposited the imposed fine amount then their bail bonds shall stands discharged.

¶36

14 Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

¶37

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶38

Sourabh P.

Deleted (Lakhan) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deleted (Lakhan) 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

Rajesh Kumar @ Bhopali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajneesh Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raju Anchal Vs State of Chhattisgarh