Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

CRA No. 698 of 2016

¶3

2025:CGHC:54978

¶4

Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL JHA JHA Date:2025.11.13 10:30:00 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

CRA No. 698 of 2016

¶8

1 - Shyam Sunder Gupta S/o Brijnath Prasad Gupta Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Jarhi, Ward No. 1, Near Mahamaya School Police Station Bhatgaon, Rev. And Civil Distt. Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Ajay Kumar Thakur S/o Ram Narayan Thakur Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Jarhi, Ward No. 1, Police Station Bhatgaon, Rev. And Civil District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, Permanent R/o. Village Indrapur Khori, Police Station Ramanujganj, Rev. And Civil Distt. Balrampur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate

¶16

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma and Ms. Isha Jajodia, PL

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board

¶18

11/11/2025

¶19

This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

¶20

2

¶21

CRA No. 698 of 2016

¶22

28/04/2016 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 105/2013 by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Surajpur (C.G.) whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶23

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 325 of the Indian Penal Code	Rigorous imprisonment of two
	years and fine of Rs. 500/-, with
	default stipulation.

¶24

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Shivkumar Paikra (P.W.-4) (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”), is a member of a Scheduled Tribe community and earns his livelihood by working as a driver. On 25.09.2012, at about 10:00 p.m., while he was returning home on foot from Jarhi Chowk, and on reaching near Mahamaya School, he noticed the accused persons standing on the roadside. The complainant inquired from them as to who they were, whereupon the accused persons started abusing him in obscene language by referring to his mother and sister, saying, “Don’t you recognize us?” and “Who are you to ask?” It is alleged that thereafter, accused Shyamsundar assaulted the complainant with fists on his face while accused Ajay caught hold of him. Accused Shyamsundar further pushed the complainant, causing him to fall to the ground, and both the accused persons kicked him on his waist, due to which he sustained injuries on his face, mouth, and left side of the waist, and one of his teeth was broken.

¶25

On the basis of the complainant’s oral report, FIR No. 120/2012 was registered at Police Station Bhatgaon for offences punishable under

¶26

3

¶27

CRA No. 698 of 2016

¶28

Sections 294 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant was medically examined at the Primary Health Centre, Bhatgaon. During investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared the spot map, seized the caste certificate of the complainant, recorded the statements of witnesses, and arrested the accused persons on 02.10.2012. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 294 and 325/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 before the competent court.

¶29

The learned trial court framed charges against the accused persons under the aforesaid provisions, to which they abjured guilt and claimed to be tried. In their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused persons denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, the accused examined Sonu Lal (D.W.-1) as their witness.

¶30

In support of its case, the prosecution examined in all five witnesses, namely, Narendra Kumar Shukla (P.W.-1), who had issued the caste certificate of the complainant; S.R. Diwan (P.W.-2), the Investigating Officer; Sharmila Paikra (P.W.-3), the wife of the complainant; Shivkumar Paikra (P.W.-4), the complainant himself; and Dr. K.D. Paikra (P.W.-5), who conducted the medical examination of the injured complainant.

¶31

The learned Trial Court, upon due appreciation of the oral and

¶32

4

¶33

CRA No. 698 of 2016

¶34

documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by the impugned judgment; however, it convicted and sentenced them for the offences as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this appeal has been preferred.

¶35

Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that as per the prosecution, on 25.09.2012, while the complainant–Shivkumar Paikra (P.W.-4) was returning home from Jarhi Chowk and reached near Mahamaya School, the appellants allegedly abused and assaulted him. It is submitted that the allegations are general and unsupported by any independent witness; and their statements suffer from material contradictions. The medical evidence also does not fully support the prosecution version. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is unsustainable. In the alternative, he submits that the appellants have no criminal antecedents and have remained on bail without misuse of the liberty granted to them. Hence, they may be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

¶36

Mr. Shailendra Sharma and Ms. Isha Jajodia, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submit that the conviction of the appellants is well founded and does not call for any interference.

¶37

5

¶38

CRA No. 698 of 2016

¶39

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the evidence and documents on record with circumspection.

¶40

In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, it is necessary to scrutinize the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

¶41

The complainant (P.W.-4) deposed that he knows the accused persons. On the night of the incident, at about 9–10 p.m., while returning home on foot after parking his dumper at the quarry, he reached near Mahamaya School where the accused were standing on the roadside. When he asked who they were, both accused persons abused him in filthy language referring to his mother and sister, pushed him to the ground, and assaulted him with fists and kicks, causing injuries to his mouth and waist and breaking one of his teeth. He stated that the accused, knowing that he belongs to the Kanwar Scheduled Tribe, abused him by using caste-related filthy words. He further stated that no one was present at the spot, and thereafter he went home, informed his wife about the incident, and lodged a report the next morning at Police Station Bhatgaon (Ex.P-4). He was medically examined at PHC Bhatgaon; the police prepared the spot map (Ex.P-2), seized his caste certificate (Ex.P-1) under seizure memo (Ex.P-3), and recorded his statement.

¶42

In cross-examination, he stated that he knew the accused for 5–6 years before the incident and there was no prior enmity. He admitted that a Jagran was being held at village Shaktinagar, about two kilometres away, and that the area was deserted at the time. He stated that he fell

¶43

6

¶44

CRA No. 698 of 2016

¶45

unconscious for about half an hour after the assault and went home thereafter. He denied the suggestions that his tooth was not broken, that he was drunk, or that he had lodged a false report at the instance of his brother. He also denied any compromise or demand of money from the accused.

¶46

Sharmila Paikara (PW3), wife of complainant stated that she does not know the accused persons. On the date of the incident, around 10:00 p.m., her husband came home and informed her that while returning from work near Mahamaya School, he had questioned two boys standing on the roadside, upon which they abused him using filthy and castebased language. On approaching them, he identified them as accused Shyam Sunder and Ajay Singh, who were under the influence of liquor. Both accused assaulted her husband with fists and kicks, due to which he sustained injuries on his face, mouth, and left shoulder, and one of his teeth was broken. The report of the incident was lodged at the police station, where her statement was also recorded.

¶47

In cross-examination, she admitted that her husband occasionally consumes liquor and that liquor is sometimes prepared at home. She stated that she was in the village at the time of the incident and met her husband the next morning when he called her. On inquiry, her husband informed her that the accused had assaulted him. She further stated that there was no prior enmity or acquaintance between her husband and the accused. She could not say whether the accused were aware of their caste. She denied the suggestion that her husband sustained injuries due

¶48

7

¶49

CRA No. 698 of 2016

¶50

to a fall and reiterated that her husband told her the accused had assaulted and abused him.

¶51

Dr. K.D. Paikara (PW5), who was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Bhatgaon from November 2010 to June 2014, stated that on 27.09.2012, injured Shiv Kumar Paikara was brought by Constable Dinesh Kumar for medical examination. On examination, he found the following injuries: (1) pain in the upper gum with a broken upper left incisor tooth; (2) a contusion mark on the left upper lip measuring 2 × ½ × ½ cm with tenderness; (3) pain in the left palm with blackish discoloration; and (4) complaint of pain in the left waist and thigh. He opined that the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object; injuries No. 2, 3, and 4 were simple in nature, whereas injury No. 1 was grievous. The duration of the injuries was within one to three days prior to the examination. His medical report is Ex. P-5, bearing his signature. In cross-examination, he admitted that such injuries could also occur if a person falls face down on a hard surface.

¶52

From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-4 Shivkumar Paikra (injured complainant) and PW-5 Dr. K.D. Paikra, it stands established that the complainant sustained injuries on his mouth, lips, and left waist in the incident near Mahamaya School, Jarhi. The ocular version of the complainant finds full corroboration from the medical evidence.

¶53

The testimony of PW-4, being an injured witness, inspires confidence. His statement that accused Shyamsundar assaulted him on the face while

¶54

8

¶55

CRA No. 698 of 2016

¶56

accused Ajay caught hold of him, resulting in a broken tooth and other injuries, is consistent and supported by medical findings.

¶57

Dr. K.D. Paikra (PW5), who examined the complainant soon after the occurrence, noticed four injuries, including one grievous injury, a broken upper tooth, caused by a hard and blunt object. His medical report (Ex. P- 5) corroborates the injured’s version.

¶58

The defence suggestion that the injuries were caused by a fall on a hard surface is not convincing in view of the consistent and corroborated testimony of the injured witness. Minor inconsistencies are immaterial and do not affect the core of the prosecution case.

¶59

On overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW-4 by assaulting him, resulting in a broken tooth. The conviction of the appellants under Section 325 IPC is, therefore, well-founded.

¶60

As far as the question of sentence is concerned, keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court in George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet, (2009) 13 SCC 478 , wherein leniency was shown considering the long passage of time and payment of fine to the victim, this Court finds it appropriate to take a similar view in the present case. The incident in question occurred in the year 2012; the appellants have already remained in custody for about one month and seven days, have no previous criminal antecedents, and the occurrence appears to have arisen out of a sudden altercation without premeditation, resulting in only one grievous injury. The appellants have also remained on bail during the pendency of

¶61

9

¶62

CRA No. 698 of 2016

¶63

this appeal and have not misused the liberty granted to them. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately met by reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, while suitably enhancing the fine, as indicated hereinbelow.

¶64

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Trial Court is modified to the period already undergone. However, the fine amount is enhanced to ₹10,000/- each, totaling ₹20,000/-, to be deposited before the Trial Court within a period of one month, failing which the appellants shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The fine so deposited shall be paid to the injured complainant as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶65

With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the appeal stands partly allowed.

¶66

The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS.

¶67

The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶70

Rahul

Shyam Sunder Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder Gupta 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivlal Yadav and Others Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Samriddhi Dubey Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Christian Womans Board of Mission Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S. S.K. Furniture Vs Union of India

Sonaram Chandel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramdulare Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh