Shobharam Sahu and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.01.09 10:38:06 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:1024

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 925 of 2011

¶7

Shobharam Sahu, S/o Shankar Lal Sahu, aged about 42 years, R/o Village Madanpur, Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

Kushal Sahu S/o Mahettar Sahu, aged about 28 years, R/o Village Madanpur, Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

Dilesh Kumar S/o Shobharam Sahu, aged about 20 years, R/o Village Madanpur, Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

Ramhare S/o Ramgopal Sahu, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Madanpur, Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

Kamla Sahu W/o Ramhare Sahu, aged about 48 years, R/o Village Madanpur, Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

Shanti Bai W/o Manohar Sahu, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Madanpur, Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

Sunita Bai W/o Kaliram Sahu, aged about 38 years, R/o Village Madanpur, Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

Narbada Bai W/o Kushal Sahu, aged about 37 years, R/o Village Madanpur, Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

2

¶16

Sukriti Bai W/o Shobharam Sahu, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Madanpur, Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶17

... Appellants

¶18

versus

¶19

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station- A.J.K. Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶20

... Respondent(s)

¶21

For Appellants : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

¶23

07/01/2025

¶24

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.11.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), in Special Case No.8/2010 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :

¶25

Conviction	Sentence & in Default
U/s 147 of IPC	Fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount S.I. for 1 month
	RI for 6 months with fine of Rs. 200/-, in
U/s 452 of IPC	default of payment of fine amount S.I. for 15
	days
U/s 323/149 of	Fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of
IPC	fine amount S.I. for 1 month

¶26

The prosecution’s brief story is as follows: On 13/09/2009, the complainant Madhulata (PW-4) submitted a written report (Exhibit P4) to the Station House Officer, A.J.K.

¶27

3

¶28

Police Station, Bilaspur, stating that on the said date at around 7:00 AM, she was going to the field with her mother-in-law. At that time, the accused persons, standing outside their house, abused the complainant and her mother-in-law, calling them “Chamri, Saali, Veshya” (derogatory terms) and started dragging and beating them. Both of them saved their lives and went back home. On the same day, at around 2:00 PM, when the complainant, her mother-in-law, and children were at home, the accused Shobharam Sahu, his wife, and other accused persons entered the complainant’s house armed with sticks. They hurled abuses like “Maa-Behen, Chamrin Saale, Madarchod” (derogatory terms) and started beating them with sticks and fists. During the scuffle, the complainant’s blouse was torn, and her saree was snatched and thrown onto the roof. The accused dragged the complainant and her mother-in-law to the courtyard and assaulted them again. They broke utensils kept in the house by hitting them with sticks. The complainant was beaten with fists, while her mother-in-law was hit on the head with a stick, causing injuries. The incident was witnessed by Santosh Kumar Suryavanshi, Narendra Kumar, and Shalo Bai. Based on the said report, a case was registered against the accused, and during the investigation, the injured persons were medically examined. Witness statements were recorded. A site map of the incident was prepared, a caste certificate was seized, sticks were confiscated, and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed.

¶29

So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 19 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

¶30

4

¶31

pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However in their defence, two defence witnesses have been examined by them.

¶32

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.11.2011, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶33

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 36-66 years old at present. The appellants No.1 to 4 have already remained in jail for about 3 days. The incident took place in year 2009, and since 2011 the appeal is pending. It is prayed that the sentence of appellants No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, as regards the sentence of Appellants No.5 to 9, keeping in view that the incident is of the year 2009 i.e. 15 years back, it may be appropriate that Appellants No.5 to 9 may be sentenced by enhancing the fine amount only for offence under Section 452 of the IPC in the interest of justice.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and 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 complainant Madhulata (PW-4) and the witnesses Kejabai (PW-5), Narendra Kumar (PW-3), Dr. S.K. Chandel (PW-2) and Santosh Kumar (PW-6), establish the

¶37

5

¶38

involvement of the appellants in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 452 & 323/149 of IPC.

¶39

As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2009 about 15 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that appellants No.1 to 9 are aged about 36-66 years at present, and Appellants No.1 to 4 have already remained in jail for about 3 days. However, Appellants No.5 to 9 have not remained in jail for a single day, in the interest of justice, in considered opinion of this Court, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence of appellants No.1 to 4 from R.I. for 6 months to the period already undergone by them i.e. 3 days for the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC. However, fine amount for offence under Section 452 of IPC is enhanced from 200 to 1000/each. So far as the sentence of appellants Nos. 5 to 9 is concerned, they are sentenced only to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 452 of the IPC and their sentence of imprisonment under Section 452 of the IPC is set-aside. The Appellants shall deposit the fine amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In default thereof, they shall liable to further undergo SI for 1 month. If any amount of fine deposited by the Appellants shall be adjusted in the fine imposed upon them today. Furthermore, the conviction and fine amount imposed upon them for the offences punishable under Sections 147 & 323/149 of IPC shall remain as it is.

¶40

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

¶41

11.It is reported that the Appellants are on bail. They need not

¶42

6

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶46

Shubham

Shobharam Sahu and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobharam Sahu and Ors. 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

Lokesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lokeshwar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganesh Ram Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandeep Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh