Smt.Neeta Singh Vs Laxminarayan and Ors. — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Smt.Neeta Singh Vs Laxminarayan and Ors. — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Appeal allowed in part: conviction under Sections 436/149, 325/149 and 325 IPC confirmed, but sentence set aside and reduced to the period already undergone in custody during trial and appeal; Criminal Revision for enhancement dismissed; appellants on bail need not surrender and bail bonds continue for six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 436/149, 325/149 and 325 IPC should be interfered with / appellants acquitted on grounds of false implication, assault by a mob without independent identification, absence of eye-witness, contradictions and omissions, broken brick wall, and previous enmity between the parties. +1 more

Court's answer

The court found previous enmity between the parties: before the incident the brother of appellant No.1 had been murdered and evidence showed the alleged crime was committed by Tahsildar Singh; appellants and others (60-70 persons) went to the complainant's house, pulled down the wall and threw utensils; these facts were supported by PW-5 (Neeta Singh) and PW-6 (Savitri Devi).

Ratio / Principle

There was no eye-witness to the incident. Dr. K.N. Choudhary (PW-13) opined that the injuries to the victims could have been caused by hard and blunt object with duration of 7 to 8 hours; X-ray Ex.P/19 disclosed fracture of the middle phalanx of Savitri Devi (PW-6) and Ex.P/20 fracture of the tibia bone of Neeta Singh (PW-5).

Key takeaways

On evaluation of the prosecution witnesses and the manner of the incident, the trial court was justified in holding that the offence was committed under Sections 436/149, 325/149 and 325 IPC; the conviction cannot be faulted.ratio¶46
Conviction under Sections 436/149, 325/149 and 325 IPC confirmed, but the sentence portion was interfered with and set aside, having regard to the absence of previous antecedents of the accused, the passage of more than 16 years, the incident having arisen out of the murder of Tulsi Gupta, custody already undergone (appellants 1-3: 04/08/2008 to 21/10/2009; appellant 4: 13/07/2009 to 26/08/2009 and 01/09/2009 to 21/10/2009), and deposit of the fine amounts.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.; judgment dated 03/02/2025) — CRA No. 755 of 2009 and CRR No. 36 of 2010, arising out of S.T. No.04/2009 (Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Pendraroad, District Bilaspur, judgment dated 21/10/2009). The appellants were convicted under Sections 436/149 IPC (R.I. 01 year + fine Rs.5000/-) and Sections 325, 325/149 IPC (R.I. six months + fine Rs.1000/-), sentences concurrent, for the incident of 02.08.2008 in which they, with co-accused, entered the house of Nita Singh, assaulted Savitri Devi and Nita Singh, and set fire to the house (Crime No.88/2008, P.S. Marwahi, on dehati nalishi Ex.P/18). HELD: (i) conviction confirmed — the trial court was justified; the court noted previous enmity, the murder of Tulsi Gupta (brother of appellant No.1) allegedly by Tahsildar Singh as backdrop, absence of eye-witnesses, and medical evidence (hard and blunt object injuries of 7-8 hours' duration; fractures per X-ray Ex.P/19 - middle phalanx of Savitri Devi PW-6, and Ex.P/20 - tibia of Neeta Singh PW-5); (ii) on sentence, considering no previous antecedents, lapse of more than 16 years, custody already undergone (appellants 1-3: 04/08/2008-21/10/2009; appellant 4: 13/07/2009-26/08/2009 and 01/09/2009-21/10/2009) and deposit of fines, the sentence was set aside and the period already undergone was awarded. The complainant's Criminal Revision (CRR No.36/2010) for enhancement of sentence was dismissed. Bail bonds directed to continue for six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.; appellants need not surrender.

1

2025:CGHC:6145

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 755 of 2009

1 - Laxminarayan S/o. Late Balram Prasad Gupta, R/o. Venkatnagar, P.S. District Anuppur, (MP) Jaithari, District Anuppur (M.P.)

Ezaz Ahmed, S/o. Mohammad Hashib, aged about 48 years, R/o. Venkatnagar, P.S. Jaithari, District Anuppur, (M.Ρ.)

Sanjay Gupta, S/o. Ramsnehi Gupta, 26 years old, R/o. Venkatnagar, P.S. Jaithari, District Anuppur, (MP)

Satyanarayan, S/o.Balram Prasad Gupta, aged about 43 years, R/o. Venkatnagar, P.S. Jaithari, District Anuppur, (M.Ρ.).

--- Appellant (s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

--- Respondent(s)

CRR No. 36 of 2010

1 - Smt.Neeta Singh W/o Pawan Singh @ Tahsildar, aged about 36 years, R/o Village Meja, Tah.Mehndi, Allahabad, District Allahabad (U.P.)

--- Applicant(s)

Versus

1. Laxminarayan S/o Late Balram Prasad Gupta, aged about 40 years, R/o Venkat Nagar, police station Jaithari, Distt. Anuppur (Μ.Ρ.)

Ajaj Ahmad, S/o Mohammad Hashib, aged about 48 years, R/o Venkat Nagar, police station Jaithari, Distt. Anuppur (M.P.)

2

Sanjay Gupta, S/o Ramsanehi Gupta, aged about 26 years, R/o Venkat Nagar, police station Jaithari, Distt. Anuppur (M.Ρ.)

Satyanarayan, S/o Balram Prasad, Gupta, aged about 43 years, R/o Venkat Nagar, police station Jaithari, Distt. Anuppur (M.P.) 5. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - District Magistrate, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

--- Respondent(s)

For Appellant (s) : Shri Gourav Singhal, Advocate appearing on /Applicant(s) behalf of Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate (CRA No. 755/2009)

Shri N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate (CRR No. 36/2010)

For the State : Shri G.L. Uike, Panel Lawyer.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Judgment on Board

03/02/2025

Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision arisen out of the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Pendraroad, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in S.T. No.04/2009 on 21/10/2009, by which the each of the appellants/respondents in both the cases, have been convicted under Sections 436/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one month, under Section 325, 325/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 15 days. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 02.08.2008 at about 11.20 o'clock, the appellants along with other co-accused persons entered into the house of Nita Singh and assaulted Savitri Devi and Nita Singh.

3

It was further alleged by the prosecution that, the appellants along with other co-accused persons with a further object of mischief set fire in the house of Nita Singh & intended to cause damage to the property with the help of explosives and further to destroy the house. Due to this incident, Nita Singh sustained grievous injuries. The matter was reported at P.S. Marwahi, where initially a dehati nalishi Ex.P/18 was registered and on the basis of the Dehati Nalishi, the police station Marwahi has recorded the statement of complainant and other coaccused persons and according to the statement of the complainant and other co-accused persons registered a Crime No.88/2008 against the appellants and other co-accused persons. Thereafter, the chargesheet was filed.

During the course of trial, the appellants abjured their guilt and claimed to be trial. The prosecution on their behalf had examined as many as 13 witnesses. The Court after evaluating the evidence and the circumstances, in which the incident happened convicted the appellants/accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants have been falsely implicated as the assault has been taken place by the members of the mob and no one is independently identify by the prosecution and a report was lodged. He would further contended that the allegation is only to save themselves from the case of murder of Tulsi Gupta. He would next contended that the conviction of the appellants is based on surmises and conjectures and there is contradiction and omission in the prosecution story. He would next contend that the witnesses are not supported the case of prosecution

4

as there is no eye-witness in the said incident. He would next contend that the wall is of bricks has broken down and pulse has thrown in the house. He would lastly contended that there is previous enmity between both the parties. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order sentence passed by the trial Court is liable to be interfered and the appellants may be acquitted of the charges leveled against them.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that respondents No.1 to 4 along with six other acquitted accused persons constituted an unlawful assembly, with a common object to set fire the residential house of Smt. Neeta Singh in order to cause mischief for distraction of the residential house property and their common object attempted to murder of Smt. Neeta Singh and Savitri Devi.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the order of the Court below is well merited, which do not call for any interference. Learned counsel for the revisioner (in CRR No.36/2010) contended that punishment should be enhanced.

Neeta Singh (PW-5) in her statement stated that Laxminarayan Gupta, Nivedita, Sanjay, Ejaz Ahmad, these four people picked up her motherin-law (Savitri Devi) and threw her. After this, she ran and pulled her mother-in-law, she was burnt. While pulling her mother-in-law, both her hands got burnt. Laxminarayan, Sanjay Gupta both hit her with a rod, due to which she got injured. Satyanarayan hit her with a rod which hit her left hand, due to which her palm got split in the middle. Ejaz Ahmad hit her with a crowbar on her leg, due to which her leg broke.

5

Due to which she fell. When she fell, all these people started beating her with the sticks they had with them.

Savitri Devi (PW-6) in her statement stated that Ejaz Ahmed hit her on the head with a rod, when she tried to stop it with her hand, the finger of her palm broke. Satyanarayan Gupta hit her on the head with a rod, due to which her head got hit and thereafter Ramsnehi Gupta, Laxman Gupta, Avinash, Ramesh, Neeraj Gupta, one-handed Vaikatnagar ka Chhota, Gudda, and others people started hitting her with sticks after she fell.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length with utmost circumspection. I found that there is previous enmity. It is important fact that before this incident the brother of the appellant No. 1 has murdered and evidence shows that alleged crime committed by the Tahsildar Singh, therefore, appellants and others 60 - 70 persons went to the house of the complainant and they were fall down the wall and thrown the utensil. Above facts supported by witness Savitri Devi (PW6) and Neeta Singh (PW-5). There is no eye-witness in this case. Dr. M.S. Marko has examined the injured and refer injured to the CIMS for further treatment. Dr.K.N. Choudhary (PW-13) has been examined complainant Savitri Devi and Neeta Singh and report (Ex.P/17) and (Ex.P/18) doctor opined that the injuries sustained by the victims could have been caused by way of the weapons hard and blunt object and the duration was 7 to 8 hours. As per Ex.P/19 X-ray report it is found that there is facture in middle phalanx of the Savitri Devi (PW-6) and as per X-ray report Ex.P/20 there is fracture in tibia bone of the Neeta Singh (PW-5).

6

Taking into the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the incident, the way it happened and after careful examination, I am of the opinion that trial Court was justified in holding that the offence has been committed under Sections 436/149, 325/149 and 325 of IPC. As a result, the conviction cannot be faulted. Now further reverting to the quantum of sentence, the facts would further show that there is no previous antecedent of the present accused and more than 16 years have been passed and incident taken place due to murder of Tulsi Gupta, and the appellants No.1, 2 & 3 have already remained in jail from 04/08/2008 to 21/10/2009 and appellant No. 4 has already remained in jail from 13/07/2009 to 26/08/2009 and 01/09/2009 to 21/10/2009 and deposited the fine amount imposed on them. It appears that prayer on behalf of the appellants can be allowed. Hence this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction under Section 436/149, 325/149 and 325 of IPC against the appellants are confirmed. The sentence part is interfered with and set-aside, in place of that appellants are awarded sentence of period already undergone by them in custody during trial and appeal for the offence under Sections 436/149, 325/149 and 325 of IPC.

Appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Bail bonds furnished by them shall continue for six months from the date of this judgment for compliance of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The Criminal Revision for enhancement of sentence to the respondents No. 1 to 4 is hereby dismissed.

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

NARESHKUMARKAMDE Digitally signedby NARESHKUMAR KAMDEDate:2025.03.2811:30:15 +0530