Bikul Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

	... Non-applicant
For Applicants	: Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Uttara Shrivastava, Advocate.
For State	: Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer.
For Objector	: Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate.

¶16

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal)

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

07/10/2025

¶19

The present applicants have preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 26.11.2016 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No.12/2016, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), in Criminal Case No.869/2002, convicting the applicants under Section 325

¶20

2

¶21

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each.

¶22

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.11.2002, at about 5:00 PM, the complainant- Roshanlal had gone to his agricultural field to harvest paddy crops, at that time, the accused persons/applicants came there armed with sticks, started quarreling with the complainant over land dispute, abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with sticks, by which, he sustained injuries over his head, arms, shoulders and waist. On the basis of the report lodged to the above effect, an FIR was registered against the applicants.

¶23

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur. The accused persons abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty.

¶24

The Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused persons/applicants of the offences under Sections 148, 294, 323 and 341 of the IPC. However, they were convicted and sentenced as mentioned in Para 1 of this order. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in a criminal appeal, but the Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 26.11.2016, dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, this revision.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that she does not want to press this revision on conviction part of the applicants, but confines her argument to the sentence part only, which according to her, is on higher side. She further submits that the applicants have already remained in jail for a period of 10 days, i.e., from 26.11.2016 to 05.12.2016; they have no criminal

¶26

3

¶27

antecedents; and they are facing the lis since November 2002, i.e. more than 22 years. She further submits that the fine amount has already been deposited by the applicants before the concerned trial Court. She also submits that at present, the age of accused- Shyamlal is more than 70 years, accused- Atibal is about 60 years old and accused- Bikul was a young boy at the time of the incident, therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjappa vs. State of Karnataka , reported in (2007) 6 SCC 231.

¶28

On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the revision and supports the impugned judgments passed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the objector submits that although the learned Courts have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicants for the aforesaid offence, but no compensation has been awarded to the victim by either of the Courts while passing their respective judgments, whereas compensation ought to have been granted in favour of the injured- Roshan Lal. Therefore, it is prayed that appropriate compensation be awarded to the injured in view of the provisions contained in Section 357 of the Cr.P.C.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶31

Considering the statements of PW-2 Roshan Lal, PW-3 Mehrej Bai, PW-4 Panmeshwari coupled with the medical evidence of PW-8 Dr. P.K. Sharma and the other material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is a correct finding and I

¶32

4

¶33

hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of the applicants.

¶34

As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Manjappa (Supra) and also considering the age of the applicants, the fact that they have undergone 10 days, they are facing the lis since November, 2002 i.e. for more than 22 years and there is no criminal antecedents against them, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them, while enhancing the fine amount from Rs.1,000/- each to Rs.3,000/each for the said offence. Ordered accordingly. The enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by each applicant within a period of two months from today before the concerned trial Court. The total fine amount, i.e., Rs.9,000/-, shall be paid to the victim (PW-2 Roshan Lal) as compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C., by the concerned trial Court after due verification. The fine amount already deposited by the applicants shall be adjusted accordingly. In case the enhanced fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the applicants shall undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month.

¶35

Consequently, the revision is partly allowed.

¶36

It is reported that the applicants are on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 481 of BNSS.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Radhakishan Agrawal)

¶39

Judge

¶40

Akhilesh

Bikul v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikul 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

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Kamlesh Kumar

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Kunal Ghai

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Vishal Sehgal

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Dulsai Nat

Parmanand Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Karamchand Pashwan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh