Rajkumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rajkumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part: conviction under Section 323 IPC affirmed; sentence reduced to the period already undergone (custody from 14.07.2016 to 22.07.2016); fine of Rs.1,000/- left intact; record sent back to the trial Court for compliance.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 323 IPC recorded by the trial Court was sustainable, examined by this Court even though the appellant's counsel did not challenge the conviction and confined the appeal to the quantum of sentence. +1 more

Court's answer

The trial Court committed no mistake in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC; the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction is affirmed.

Ratio / Principle

As regards quantum of sentence: the incident took place in 2016 (more than 09 years having elapsed), the appellant had already undergone jail sentence from 14.07.2016 to 22.07.2016 and has no previous criminal antecedents; therefore no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail now, and the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.

Key takeaways

Operative order: the appeal is allowed in part; conviction of the appellant under Section 323 IPC is affirmed; the sentence is modified and reduced to the period already undergone; the fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the trial Court remains intact; record and copy of the judgment to be sent back immediately to the trial Court for compliance.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 1152 of 2018, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge), decided 10.03.2026 — Criminal appeal against the judgment dated 06.07.2018 in Special Session Case No.60/2016 (Special Session Judge (Atrocities), Ramanujganj) convicting the appellant under Section 323 IPC (maximum SI 03 months, fine Rs.1,000/-, in default additional SI 07 days); the trial Court had acquitted him under the SC/ST (Atrocities) Act and the Tonhi Pratadna Act. Counsel for the appellant did not challenge the conviction and confined the appeal to the quantum of sentence, praying for reduction to the period already undergone (custody 14.07.2016 to 22.07.2016), citing the ~9-year lapse since the 01.01.2016 incident and absence of subsequent criminal activity. The Court, examining the impugned judgment of its own motion, found the trial Court committed no mistake in holding the appellant guilty under Section 323 IPC and affirmed the conviction. Considering the elapsed time, the custody already undergone and the absence of previous criminal antecedents, it held no useful purpose would be served by further imprisonment. Appeal allowed in part: sentence reduced to the period already undergone; fine of Rs.1,000/- retained; record sent back to the trial Court for compliance.

1

2026:CGHC:11522

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 1152 of 2018

Rajkumar S/o Ramdhani Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Madanpur, Aamapara, Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant.

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station In-Charge, PSBasantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

-- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the Appellant : Ms. Soniya Kuldeep, Advocate

For the State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL.

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Judgment on Board

10.03.2026

Challenge in the criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.07.2018 passed in Special Session Case No.60/2016, by which, learned Special Session Judge, (Atrocities), Ramanujganj, District BalrampurRamanujganj, (CG), convicted the appellant for offence

2

punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo maximum Simple Imprisonment for 03 months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo additional SI for 07 days.

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.01.2016, appellant alongwith co-accused/Ramdhani have assaulted the complainant and his mother, abused them in filthy language and also humiliate them knowing that they belong to scheduled cast community. Based on report, FIR was registered against the appellant and he has been arrested in the alleged crime/offence.

A fter completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offence under Sections 294, 323, 506 of I.P.C, Section 3(1-10) of SC/ST (Atrocities) Act and Section 4 & 5 of the Tonhi Pratadna Act and based upon which, trial Court framed the charge against the appellant.

In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 11 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication.

After completion of trial, trial Court acquitted the appellant for the offence under the SC/ST (Atrocities) Act and Tonhi

3

Pratadna Act, however, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

Learned counsel for appellant would submit that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and is confining his argument to the quantum of sentence only. He submits that incident had taken place in the year 2016, there was no pre-meditation and on the spur of moment incident had taken place, it was first offence of appellant and, thereafter, he had not indulged himself in any other criminal activity, appellant has already undergone the jail sentence from 14.07.2016 to 22.07.2016, therefore, no purpose would be served by again sending the appellant to jail after lapse of more than 09 years. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that looking to the nature of offence, leniency should not be shown to appellant herein.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.

4

Though learned counsel for appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record.

Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.

As regard quantum of sentence, considering the fact that incident took place in the year 2016, i.e. ,more than 09 years have elapsed, appellant has already undergone the jail sentence from 14.07.2016 to 22.07.2016, he is not having any previous criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing remaining period of sentence and ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to the period already

5

undergone by him.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Section 323 of IPC is hereby affirmed; sentence imposed upon the appellant under aforesaid Section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, fine amount imposed by the trial Court upon the appellant shall remain intact.

13. Record of this case alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

J/-