Partly allowed¶11

Sachin Rangare v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Feb 2025CRA/89/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sentence reduction to period already undergone; Section 304 Part II IPC culpable homicide not amounting to murder; Section 506 Part II IPC; appeal under Section 415(2) BNSS; young accused aged 20-24 years; assault by hand, fist and leg; no deadly weapon; no intention to kill; fine of Rs.700 each affirmed; release forthwith; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; CRA No. 89 of 2025; Justice Arvind Kumar Verma; Session Trial No.148/2020; FIR Crime No. 63/20.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part: conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC affirmed; fine of Rs.200/- and Rs.500/- (total Rs.700/- each) affirmed; substantive sentence of ten years RI reduced to the period already undergone; appellants in jail to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. ¶11

Sachin Rangare Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the substantive jail sentence imposed under Section 304 Part II IPC should be reduced to the period already undergone, the appellants (in custody for more than 4 years and 6 months, without criminal antecedents) having confined the appeal to quantum of sentence and not contesting conviction.

¶6

Court's answer

The substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone instead of the ten years RI awarded by the trial Court.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is allowed in part; the conviction of the appellants under Section 304 Part II IPC is affirmed.

¶11

Key takeaways

The fine sentences of Rs.200/- and Rs.500/- (total Rs.700/- each) are affirmed; the appellants have paid the fine amount of Rs.700/-.ratio¶11
The appellants, who are in jail, are to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.ratio¶11
Reduction of sentence is justified because the appellants are aged about 20 to 24 years, assaulted the deceased with hand, fist and leg due to previous animosity, there was no intention to kill, and no deadly weapon or lathi was used; hence the ends of justice are served by sentencing them to the period already undergone.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 415(2) BNSS against conviction under Sections 506 Part II and 304 Part II IPC (Upper Session Judge, Raipur, Session Trial No.148/2020, judgment dated 20/12/2024). Appeal not pressed on conviction; confined to quantum of substantive sentence. Held, allowing the appeal in part: conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC affirmed; fines of Rs.200/- and Rs.500/- (total Rs.700/- each) affirmed; the ten-year RI sentence reduced to the period already undergone (appellants had been in custody for more than 4 years and 6 months) in view of the appellants' young age (about 20 to 24 years), the assault having been made with hand, fist and leg on account of previous animosity, absence of any intention to kill and non-use of any deadly weapon or lathi; appellants directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

2025:CGHC:7862

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 89 of 2025

¶6

1 - Sachin Rangare S/o Sunil Rangare Aged About 24 Years R/o At Jagannath Nagar, Naharpara, Satnamipara, Kota, P/s Saraswati Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Watan Shrivas @ Monty S/o Sukhdev Shrivas Aged About 24 Years R/o At Jagannath Nagar, Naharpara, Satnamipara, Kota, P/s Saraswati Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

3 - Mukesh Sen S/o Lt. Om Prakash Sen Aged About 20 Years R/o At Jagannath Nagar, Naharpara, Satnamipara, Kota, P/s Saraswati Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

... Appellant(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P/s Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, C.G.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Shri Vinay Nagdev, Advocate appearing through video conferencing. For the State : Shri G.L. Uike, Panel Lawyer.

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

NARESHKUMAR Digitally signedby NARESHKUMAR KAMDEDate: 2025.03.25 KAMDE 12:03:16 +0530

¶17

¶18

13/02/2025

¶19

This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 415 (2) of the BNSS against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/12/2024 passed by the Upper Session Judge, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Session Trial No.148/2020 convicting the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section 506 Part II of IPC and sentenced to undergo each of the appellants for two years R.I. with fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine further undergo 10 days RI and under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced to undergo each of the appellants for ten years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine further undergo one month RI. Both the sentences are run concurrently.

¶20

In brief the prosecution story is that one Shantanu Khutiyare lodged a FIR before the concerned police station on 30.06.2020, at about 22:30, the appellants due to old vengeance, have assaulted his cousin brother the deceased Jitendra Kotle @ Ishwar Kotle with hand and fist and have also abused him, due to which he sustained injuries over his hand and at the back side of neck. Due to the injuries sustained, the deceased was taken to Mekahara Hospital from where he was referred to DKS Hospital.

¶21

Based upon such information, an FIR bearing Crime No. 63/20, u/s 294, 323, 506, 34 IPC was registered against the appellants by Head Constable Narayan Prasad Sahu PW-12 and the matter was taken up for investigation and on 03.07.2020, the spot map of Ex.P/2, Panchnama of the spot Ex.P/3 were prepared and further, the statements of the witnesses were also recorded and the appellants were arrested in accordance with arrest memo Ex.P/15, Ex.P/16 and

¶22

¶23

Ex.P/17, and further, memos of Ex.P/18 and Ex. P/19 were issued for recording the testimony of the deceased. After investigation Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet against the appellants under Section 302 of IPC.

¶24

In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. Statement of all 3 accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused under Section 294 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellants under as above.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned and the record of the trial Court.

¶26

Counsel for the appellant argued that he is not contesting the instant appeal on conviction part, whereby the present appellants have been convicted for an offence under Section 506 Part II and under Section 304 Part II, but he is confining his arguments for the quantum of substantive jail sentence only. He further submits that the appellants had remained in jail for more than 4 years and 6 months till date. They were not having any criminal antecedent and they will not commit any offence in future. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, they may be sentenced for the period already undergone by them.

¶27

Counsel for the State argued that the conviction and sentences of the appellants are based on clinching evidence. The conviction and sentences of the appellants do not call for any interference by this

¶28

¶29

Court.

¶30

During the course of treatment, the deceased Jitendra Kotle @ Ishwar Kotle passed away on 15.07.2020 due to the sustained injuries and therefore offence u/s 302 of IPC was added. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer PW-13 DSP Ramesh Kumar Markam issued a memo ExP/20 dated 15.09.2020 for preparation of spot map from the Patwari. During investigation, supplementary statement of Santosh Khutiyare and Ram Kumar Mandle were recorded after culmination of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

¶31

As per the alleged postmortem report Ex. P-34 P.W. 17 Dr. Rudra Narayan Gajendra had conducted the autopsy and found that body has adult diaper insitu and wrapped in red bedsheet. Body is cold. Rigor mortis present in all over body. Postmortem lividity present. Eyes closed. Mouth close. Straw color fluid from noes and mouth. Right side femoral central vein. External injury over body as old healed abrasion wound of size 1 cm, at right side 5 cm above buttock. They opined that cause of death was due to cervical spinal injury and their complications. Death within 12 to 24 hrs. before postmortem examination.

¶32

From minute examination of the witnesses makes it clear that upon considering the entire material, the trial Court has convicted the accused/appellants for offence under Sections 506 Part II of IPC and under Section 304 Part II of IPC. The accused/appellants are aged about 20 to 24 years, accused have assaulted to deceased with hand, fist and leg due to previous animity, there is no intention to kill the

¶33

¶34

deceased, there is no use of any type of deadly weapon or lathi etc., therefore, the ends of justice would be served if the appellants be convicted for the period already undergone.

¶35

Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellants under Section 304 Part II is hereby affirmed. The fine sentence of Rs.200/- and Rs.500/- total Rs.700/- each is also affirmed. The appellants are paid the fine amount of Rs.700/-. The accused/appellants are sentenced for the period already undergone instead 10 years awarded by the trial Court. The accused/appellants are in jail, they be released forthwith if not required in any case.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

( Arvind Kumar Verma ) JUDGE

¶38

Kamde

Sachin Rangare v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Rangare 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

Jasvant Singh Thakur Vs Smt. Shikha Rajput Tiwari

Ramesh Jashwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sahil Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bikesh Bai Markandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kishor Dashriya Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh