Chunuram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.01.06 18:43:46 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:531

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 806 of 2004

¶7

1 - Chunuram S/o Firangiram Aged About 27 Years Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Hardi P.S. Devri Tah. Dondilohara District-Durg

¶8

2 – Choglal S/o Kriparam Sahu (Died And Deleted as per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 03-12-2024) aged about 42 years occupation agriculturist, R/o Village Hardi P.S. Devri Tah. Daundilohara District - Durg (C.G.)

¶9

3 - Yugal S/o Krishnalal Sahu Aged About 41 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Hardi P.S. Devri Tah. Daundilohara District - Durg (C.G.)

¶10

4 - Tikuram S/o Shri Jagnuram (Died And Deleted as Per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 03-12-2024) aged about 32 years occupation agriculturist, R/o Village Hardi P.S. Devri Tah. Daundilohara District - Durg (C.G.)

¶11

5 - Krishnalal S/o Gabhruram (Died And Deleted as per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 03-12-2024) aged about 71 years occupation agriculturist, Caste Sahu, R/o Village Hardi P.S. Devri Tah. Daundilohara District - Durg (C.G.)

¶12

2

¶13

6 - Vishram S/o Dayaram (Died And Deleted as Per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 03-12-2024) aged about 85 years occupation agriculturist, Caste Thakur, R/o Village Hardi P.S. Devri Tah. Daundilohara District - Durg (C.G.)

¶14

7 – Jaamwant, S/o Late Ramlal, aged about 36 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Hardi P.S. Devri Tah. Daundilohara District - Durg (C.G.)

¶15

... Appellants

¶16

versus

¶17

State Of Chhattisgarh Throgh Police Station Devri District - Durg (C.G.)

¶18

... Respondent

¶19

For Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶21

Judgment on Board

¶22

03/01/2025

¶23

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District - Balod (C.G.), in Sessions Case No. 320/2002 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :

¶24

3

¶25

Conviction	Sentence & in Default
	RI for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in
U/s 148 of IPC	default of payment of fine amount additional
	R.I. for 3 months
U/s 341/149 of IPC	RI for 1 month with fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 7 days
U/s 332/149 of IPC	RI for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 3 months
U/s 353/149 of IPC	RI for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 3 months

¶26

The appeal is already abated on behalf of Appellant No.2 Yoglal S/o Kriparam (wrongly mentioned in the memo of appeal as Choglal), Appellant No.4 Tikuram, Appellant No.5 Krishnalal & Appellant No.6 Vishram.

¶27

As per the prosecution story, on the date of the incident i.e. 05.03.2002, at 10:30 AM, Police Station In-Charge Deori, along with his staff, went to the incident site Tategagod for conducting the inquest proceedings related to Marg No. 5/02. At the site, the accused, along with approximately 200 men and 50 women from the village, had blocked the road in protest, causing a traffic halt on the RajnandgaonBalod route and creating obstruction for commuters. The accused stopped and vandalized a bus belonging to Hariom Travels, with registration number MP-24-C-3547, and set its tires on fire. Additionally, they vandalized a jeep, with registration number MP-29-B-0173, which was brought to the scene by Police Station In-Charge. The accused, armed with deadly weapons, attacked the personnel on duty, resulting in injuries to Head Constable Vinayak Singh, Constable Radhelal, Constable Vishnu, and Soldier Komal.

¶28

4

¶29

This created a hindrance in the performance of government duties. Based on the above, on the basis of dehati nalisi (Ex.P-19), a First Information Report (Ex.P-20) was registered against the accused at Deori police station. The site map of the incident was prepared vide Ex.P-1, and from the site, the burnt mini-bus of Hariom Travels and the damaged jeep MP-29/0173, belonging to Police Station InCharge, were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-9. Witness statements were recorded, and medical examinations of the injured police personnel were conducted. After a complete investigation, a charge sheet was filed.

¶30

So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. The statement of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

¶31

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2004, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He also submits that the appellants are about 50-64 years old at present and the appellants have already remained in jail for about 1 month 6 days. The incident took place in year 2002, and since 2004 the appeal is pending. The sentence of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 332/149 & 353/149 of IPC may be reduced from 2 years to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice.

¶33

5

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Vinay Singh (PW-11), Deen Dayal (PW-12), Dippu Singh (PW-13), Radha Charan (PW14) & Komal Singh (PW-15), establish the involvement of the appellants No. 1, 3 and 7 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 148, 341/149, 332/149 & 353/149 of IPC.

¶37

10.As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2002 about 22 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellants No.1 , 3 & 7 are aged about 50-64 years at present, and they have already remained in jail for about 1 month and 6 days, in the interest of justice, in considered opinion of this Court, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence of appellants No.1 ,3 & 7 from R.I. for 2 years to the period already undergone by them i.e. 1 month 6 days for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 332/149 & 353/149 of IPC. However, the fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-, 1,000/- & 1,000/- for the offences under Sections 148, 332/149 & 353/149 of IPC, respectively imposed upon appellants No.1, 3 & 7 by the trial Court shall remain intact. Furthermore, the conviction and sentence imposed upon them for the offence punishable under Section 341/149 of IPC shall

¶38

6

¶39

remain as it is.

¶40

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

¶41

12.Appellants No. 1, 3 & 7 are on bail. They need not to surrender in this case. Their 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.

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶44

Shubham

Chunuram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chunuram 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

Raj Mangal Chauhan @ Rajendra Chauhan Vs Sitaram Bareth

Mitlal @ Mitwa Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Udai Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Swaroop Gupta Vs State of C.G.

Tunwa Ram and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Omprakash Sonboir Vs the State of Chhattisgarh