Panch Ram @ Bono Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.09.2016 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.93/2015 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment dated 23.04.2015 passed in Criminal Case No.298/2013 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur convicting the applicants under Section 325/34 IPC and sentencing them to suffer RI for one year and fine of Rs.200/- each

¶19

2

¶20

with default sentence of RI for one month. However, the learned appellate Court set aside the conviction under Section 341/34 IPC and the sentence of RI for one month with fine of Rs.100/- each and acquitted the applicants of the offence under Section 341/34 of IPC.

¶21

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.06.2013 some quarrel took place between the son of complainant – Mankibai and nephew of the applicants, thereafter she went to Sarpanch along with her husband to report the same and returned and when they reached near the house of Panchram (applicant No.1), at 10:00 pm, the applicants stopped them and started abusing them and assaulted the complainant over her head with stick and applicants No.2 & 3 have also assaulted on the complainant with stick. On report being lodged to the above effect by her (P.W.2), offence under Sections 294, 506-B, 323, 341/34 IPC under Crime No.153/13 has been registered at Police Station Jaijaipur against the applicants.

¶22

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur against the applicants, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶23

The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted them under Section 325/34 & 341/34 IPC and sentenced them to RI for one year and fine of Rs.200/- each with default sentence of RI for one month and under Section 341/34 IPC, sentence of RI for one month with fine of Rs.100/- each In appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 325/34 IPC but acquitted them of the offence under Section 341/34 of IPC. Hence, this Revision by the present applicants.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute arose

¶25

3

¶26

between the applicants and the complainant over the quarrel between the children, which is trivial in nature. He further submits that the applicants were in jail from 26.09.2016 to 04.10.2016 and thus incarcerated jail sentence for a period of 9 days and during trial also they were on bail and they never misused the liberty granted by the Court, they have no criminal antecedents and that, they are facing the lis since June, 2013, i.e., for more than 12 years. He also submits that fine amount has been deposited. On these premises, he urged that the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶27

On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment.

¶28

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

¶29

Considering the statement of complainant PW-2 Mankibai supported by the evidence of P.W.3 Santram and medical evidence of P.W.8 Dr. S. Kachchap, who proved the M.L.C. report (Ex.P.9), according to which, there is fracture of right ulna bone found on the complainant including some bruises and contusions, and the other evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction 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 hereby affirm the said finding.

¶30

As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the applicants have undergone 9 days, they are facing the lis since 2013 i.e. for more than 12 years, there are no criminal antecedents against them and that fine

¶31

4

¶32

has already been deposited, I am of the view that 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.

¶33

Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the applicants under Section 325/34 of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the Appellate Court is hereby modified and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The fine sentence is affirmed.

¶34

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 light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶35

Sd/(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶36

Anjani

Panch Ram @ Bono v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panch Ram @ Bono 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

Nimai Barai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nehru Lal @ Ghasiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Daso Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Godavari Verma Vs Sanju Kumar Dhruve

Monalisa Agrawal Vs Niranjan Meher

Dinesh Punshi Vs Laxman Makhija