Chhed Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

3 - Chaitram Sahu S/o Narayan Sahu Aged About 50 Years, Applicant No.1 to 3 are R/o Village Darra, Police Station at Present Gidhori, Civil And Rev. District Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

--- Applicants

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Baloda, Civil And Rev. District Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶13

--- Respondent

¶14

CRR No. 672 of 2016

¶15

1 - Hiradhar S/o Pilaram Sahu Aged About 75 Years,

¶16

2 - Dauwa Ram Gond @ Dauwalal S/o Mehattar Gond Aged About 58 Years,

¶17

3 - Premlal S/o Kartikram Sahu Aged About 55 Years,

¶18

Applicant No.1 to 3 are R/o Darra, Police Station At Present Gighori, Civil

¶19

And Revenue District Baloda Bazar / Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh,

¶20

--- Applicants

¶21

Versus

¶22

State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Baloda, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar / Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

--- Respondent

¶24

CRR No. 677 of 2016

¶25

1 - Chhedilal S/o Gotiram Sahu, Aged About 42 Years,

¶26

2 - Baniya @ Mahettar S/o Shivdayal Aged About 57 Years,

¶27

Applicant No.1 and 2 are R/o Village Darra, Police Station At Present Gidhori, Civil And Rev. District Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

--- Applicants

2

Versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Baloda, Civil And Rev. District Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶32

--- Respondent

¶33

CRR No. 678 of 2016

¶34

1 - Patiram S/o Sakhiram Sahu Aged About 58 Years,

¶35

2 - Gorelal S/o Borra Sahu Aged About 45 Years,

¶36

Applicant No.1 and 2 are R/o Village Darra, Police Station At Present Gidhori, Civil And Rev. District Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶37

--- Applicants

¶38

Versus

¶39

State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Baloda, Civil And Rev. District Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶40

--- Respondent

¶41

CRR No. 703 of 2016

¶42

1 - Chand Singh S/o Gokul Gond Aged About 60 Years,

¶43

2 - Bablu @ Ram Sewak S/o Bedram Sahu Aged About 39 Years, Applicant No.1 and 2 are R/o Village Darra, Police Station At Present Gidhori, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar / Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh,

¶44

--- Applicants

¶45

Versus

¶46

State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Baloda, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar / Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh,

¶47

--- Respondent

¶48

For Applicants : Mr. Ravikar Patel, along with Mr. Nitesh Sahu, Advocates For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A.

¶49

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶50

Order on Board

¶51

01/07/2025

¶52

1. The above captioned criminal revisions arise out of same impugned order dated 15.07.2016, therefore, they are being heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

¶53

3

¶54

2. The present revisions are filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 15.07.2016 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.09/2015 whereby the judgment dated 05.02.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.947/2011 convicting the applicants under Sections 452 and 363/149 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- (each count) and R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- (each count) respectively, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 1 month (on each count), was affirmed while directing to sentences to run concurrently.

¶55

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the complainant Ghasiyaram (PW-02) lodged an FIR on 11.09.1994 alleging that on 10.09.1994 at about 08:00 PM, a village meeting was convened in which the complainant Ghasiyaram (PW-02) and his brother Ghasiram (PW-04) were called. When they reached there, then the accused persons who were present there, unanimously told them that his (Ghasiyaram) wife Lakheshwari and her mother Jugalmati used to perform witchcraft/black magic on the villagers due to which some of the villagers have died. When the complainant told that he did not know about the same and denied all the allegations, then the applicants and other villagers reached to the house of the complainant and committed marpeet with complainant’s wife and his mother. On the basis of the above background, offence were registered against the accused persons. Thereafter, the victims were medically examined, and, subsequently, spot map was prepared. During course of investigation,

¶56

4

¶57

statement of the victims and other witnesses were recorded. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and other co-accused persons (total 22 accused persons out of which 10 accused persons have already died during trial), who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶58

4. During Trial, on 21.12.2003, both the parties entered into compromise, on the basis of which the accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 294, 509, 354, 506-B and 323 of the IPC as the said offences are compoundable.

¶59

5. Learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in paragraph 2 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants and co-accused persons in Criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 15.07.2016, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment passed by the learned JMFC. Hence, this revision.

¶60

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicants but is challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that during trial, out of total accused persons, 10 accused persons have already died. Further, the complainant is not willing to prosecute the case and therefore, both the parties have entered into compromise before the Lok Adalat on 21.12.2003 as a result of which the applicants have already been acquitted of the charges which were framed against them as the said charges were compoundable. It is further submitted that applicant

¶61

5

¶62

Chhedram has remained in jail for more than 9 months and other applicants have remained in jail for more than 4 months during trial, thereafter, they were granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2016 and 29.07.2016 and they have not misused the liberty granted to them. It is further contended that the applicants have no criminal antecedents, now they are in the age group of 55-90 years and fine amount has already been deposited by them before the concerned Trial Court. Further, they are facing the lis since 1994 i.e. for more than 30 years. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶63

7. On the contrary, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment passed by the learned JMFC and Appellate Court.

¶64

8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and perused the record.

¶65

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of complainant Ghasiyaram (PW-02), Lakheshwari Bai (PW-03), Ghasiram (PW-04), Rajkumari (PW-07) supported with the other evidence 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 correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicants.

¶66

10. As regards the sentence part of the applicants, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly, the fact that on the basis of compromise entered between the parties, the applicants have

¶67

6

¶68

already been acquitted from the charges which are compoundable, further, the applicants have remained in jail for four months, they are facing the lis since 1994 i.e. for more than 30 years, they have no criminal antecedents, at present they all are aged about 55-90 years, further, the fine amount has already been deposited by them, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicants back to jail again, and ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 4 months. Further, both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

¶69

11. Consequently, the revisions are partly allowed. The conviction of applicants under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The fine sentence is hereby affirmed.

¶70

12. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

(Radhakishan Agrawal)

¶73

JUDGE

¶74

Prakash

Chhed Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhed Ram 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

Dinesh Punshi Vs Laxman Makhija

Ram Kishun and Ors. Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Panch Ram @ Bono Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhedilal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chand Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Patiram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh