Hem Lal and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:7437

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 590 of 2009

¶6

1 - Hem Lal, S/o Jhumar Satnami, aged about 28 years, R/o Sonakapara Marro, P.S. Nandghat, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶7

2 – Lal Singh, S/o Prem Prakash Satnami, aged about 36 years, R/o Sonakapara Marro, P.S. Nandghat, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶8

3 – Holwa, S/o Prem Prakash Satnami, aged about 34 years, R/o Sonakapara Marro, P.S. Nandghat, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶9

4 – Mona Bai, W/o Lal Singh Satnami, aged about 35 years, R/o Sonakapara Marro, P.S. Nandghat, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶10

5 – Baishakhin Bai, w/o Holwa Satnami, aged about 33 years, R/o Sonakapara Marro, P.S. Nandghat, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶11

6 – Jaleshwari, W/o Hem Lal Satnami, aged about 32 years, R/o Sonakapara Marro, P.S. Nandghat, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶12

7 – Jawahar, S/o Latel Satnami, aged about 33 years, R/o Sonakapara Marro, P.S. Nandghat, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶13

8 – Ganga Bai, W/o Jawahar Satnami, aged about 30 years, R/o Sonakapara Marro, P.S. Nandghat, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶14

--- Appellants

¶15

versus

¶16

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Nandghat, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶17

--- Respondent(s)

¶18

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jogi on behalf of Mr. Vinod Tekam, Advocate

¶19

For Respondent(s) : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, P.L.

¶20

2

¶21

CRR No. 827 of 2012

¶22

Manish Pandey S/o Shri Jagdish Pandey Aged About 26 Years R/o Maro Basti, Village Maro, Nandghat, Distt. Durg C.G. , Chhattisgarh

¶23

--- Applicant

¶24

Versus

¶25

1 - Hemlal And Ors S/o Jhumar Satnami Aged About 28 Years R/o Sonikapara, Maro, Ps Nandghat, Distt. Durg C.G. , Chhattisgarh

¶26

2 - Lal Singh S/o Prem Prakash Satnami Aged About 36 Years R/o Sonikapara, Maro, Ps Nandghat, Distt. Durg C.G. , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶27

3 - Holwa S/o Prem Prakash Satnami Aged About 34 Years R/o Sonikapara, Maro, Ps Nandghat, Distt. Durg C.G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶28

4 - Meena Bai W/o Lal Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Sonikapara, Maro, Ps Nandghat, Distt. Durg C.G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶29

5 - Baisakhin Bai W/o Holwa Aged About 33 Years R/o Sonikapara, Maro, Ps Nandghat, Distt. Durg C.G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶30

6 - Jaleshwari W/o Hem Lal Aged About 32 Years R/o Sonikapara, Maro, Ps Nandghat, Distt. Durg C.G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶31

7 - Jawahar S/o Latel Satnami Aged About 33 Years R/o Sonikapara, Maro, Ps Nandghat, Distt. Durg C.G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶32

8 - Ganga Bai W/o Jawahar Satnami Aged About 30 Years R/o Sonikapara, Maro, Ps Nandghat, Distt. Durg C.G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶33

9 - State Of Chhattisgarh W/o Through Ps, Nandghat Distt. Durg C.G. , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶34

	---R	espondent(s)
For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Shantam Awasthi, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1-8	: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jogi on Vinod Tekam, Advocate	behalf of Mr.
For State	: Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan,	Panel Lawyer

¶35

3

¶36

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶37

Judgment on Board

¶38

10/02/2026

¶39

The criminal appeal bearing CRA No. 590 of 2009 is filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.07.2009 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge- Bemetara, District- Durg, C.G. in Sessions Case No. 201/2006 whereby the appellants stand

¶40

convicted as under:

¶41

CONVICTION SENTENCE
U/S 325 of IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/- each of the appellant, in default of fine, additional imprisonment for 2 months.
U/S 147 of IPC Fine of Rs. 400/- to each of the appellant.
U/S 148 OF IPC Fine of Rs. 400/- to each of the appellant.
U/S 323 OF IPC Fine of Rs. 400/- to each of the appellant.
U/S 447 OF IPC Fine of Rs. 400/- to each of the appellant, in default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of 1 month to each appellant.
Fine amount has alreadybeen deposited byeach appellant.

¶42

The criminal revision bearing CRR No. 827 of 2012 is filed by the applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the code of

¶43

4

¶44

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.07.2009 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge- Bemetara, District- Durg, C.G. in Sessions Case No. 201/2006 whereby the respondent no. 1 to 8 stands convicted as described in paragraph 1 of the present judgment.

¶45

The case of the prosecution in brief, is that on 13.07.2005 at about 10:00 a.m., in village Sonikapar, Manish Pandey had gone to his field along with his uncle Pradeep and Parmeshwar to carry out sowing work with a tractor. The tractor belonged to his family and was being driven by Pramod Pandey. At that time, the accused Lal Singh, Holam, Hemlal, Jawahar, Meena Bai, Baisarin Bai, Jaleshwari and Gangabai came there together, formed an unlawful assembly, and objected to the sowing of paddy. They started abusing them in filthy language and threatened to kill and cut them. They assaulted with sticks and wooden clubs. Lal Singh struck Manish on the head and hands with a club; he also assaulted Parmeshwar Pandey. Jawahar assaulted with a stick; Holam struck Pradeep on the head with a stick; Hemlal and Jawahar assaulted Bhupendra with sticks; and Meena Bai, Baisarin and Jaleshwari also participated in the assault. All the accused, in prosecution of their common object, committed criminal trespass into the complainant’s field. The complainant reported the matter at Police Station Maro. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,

¶46

5

¶47

Balod. The case being triable by the Sessions Court was committed to this Court for trial. On the basis of the documents presented by the prosecution, charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 294, 506-B, 323 and 307 IPC were framed against the accused persons. The charges were read over and explained to them. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they stated that there had been a land dispute between the parties for about 20 years and that they had been cultivating the disputed land. They alleged that a false report was lodged against them with the intention to dispossess them. No defence witness was examined.

¶48

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that there were contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses; that the incident arose out of a land dispute; and that the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence. It was further contended that the sentence awarded is harsh.

¶49

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press this criminal appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appellants are continuously facing criminal trial since 2006 and 20 years have been elapsed. The appellants belong to one family, in which there are four women. The appellants were punished with short sentence of R.I. for 1 year and with fine sentence. The appellant Hemlal remained in judicial custody from 30.07.2005 to 21.10.2005; Lal Singh from 01.08.2005 to 21.10.2005; accused

¶50

6

¶51

Meena Bai, Baisarin Bai and Jaleshwari Bai from 01.08.2005 to 29.09.2005; accused Holam from 03.10.2005 to 28.10.2005; and accused Jawahar and Gangabai from 18.01.2007 to 24.01.2007. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellants. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶52

Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the injured witnesses have consistently supported the prosecution case; their testimony is corroborated by medical evidence; and the conviction is based on proper appreciation of evidence.

¶53

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶54

P.W.-8 (Manish Yadav) testifies that on 13.7.2005, at around 10 a.m., he, along with his uncle Pradip Pandey and his elder father Parmeshwar Pandey, went to sow paddy with two tractors and three laborers. Vinod Sahu was driving the private tractor, and Pramod Pandey was driving the other tractor. The laborers who sowed paddy included Vishnunahu, Rajesh Sahu, and Munna Yadav. Paddy sowing work had been going on since July 7th and was in its final stages when, at around 10 am, the accused persons, about 15-16 men, came towards the pond, shouting that no one should escape. Lal Singh was carrying a tabbal, one man was carrying a tangia (spinning stick), and the remaining women and

¶55

7

¶56

other accused were carrying sticks. Lal Singh attacked the applicant with a tabbal, injuring the complainant on the left elbow. He injured him on the head by hitting him in three places. Lal Singh also attacked Parmeshwar with his hand. Accused Jawahar attacked Parmeshwar from behind with a stick, injuring him on the head and back. Accused Bolwa injured Pradeep Pandey on the head with a stick, and Hemlal hit Bhupendra with a stick. Thereafter, all the accused attacked with sticks and inflicted injuries.

¶57

After the fight, both the drivers picked up the injured and brought them to Maro police station where they filed a report of Ex. P/1. Manish, Parmeshwar, Pradeep and Bhupendra were treated in Maro hospital but due to their serious injuries they were referred to Bilaspur CIMS hospital where they remained admitted and got treatment. The companion says that due to serious head injury he was sent to Bhimrao Government hospital Raipur for CT scan. His pants, shirt and vest were soaked in blood as per seizure memo Ex. P/2 and the police seized his clothes from the incident.

¶58

Regarding the incident, the statement of witness Manish (P.W.-8) has also been supported by witnesses Parmeshwar Pandey (PW2), Pradeep Kumar Pandey (P.W.-3), Bhupendra Pandey (PW-4), Pramod Pandey (PW-7), Vinod Kumar Sahu (PW-3). As per the statement of Manish Pandey (PW-8), Reshamlal Bhaskar (P.W.18) lodged an FIR bearing No. 0/2005 under sections 447, 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 506 IPC against accused Lal Singh, Hemlal, Meenabai, Jaleshwari, Holwa, Baisakhin, Gangabai. According to

¶59

8

¶60

the FIR, the injured Manish Kumar Pandey, Parameshwar Pandey, Bhupendra and Pradeep Pandey were sent to District Hospital, Maro after filling their treatment forms.

¶61

The witnesses have given explanations about the accused persons beating them and causing injuries, which has been confirmed by medical evidence as well. Dr. P.C. Thakur (PW-14) on being brought before him for medical examination on the date of incident, found a blood-filled wound on the forehead of the injured Manish Pandey (PW-1), a scratch on the right hand, and swelling on the hip. The nature of the injury was normal. X-ray was advised for the injury on the hip. Swelling was found on the left arm of Parmeshwar Pandey, the left index finger was smeared with blood, swelling and redness on the left arm was found. The injuries on the left arm and right index finger are likely to have been caused by a blow from a hard object. X-ray was advised due to the possibility of internal injury on the left arm. The injuries are normal in nature. Bhupendra has scratches on his right ring finger, swollen left hand, swelling on his left elbow, circular swelling on his head and forehead which could be caused by a blow from a hard object. The nature of the injuries on the right ring finger and head is normal. X-ray is advised for the injuries on the left hand and left elbow. Pradeep Pandey has swelling on his left shoulder, swelling with redness on his left hand which could be caused by a blow from a hard object. Scratches on his right palm, scattered wounds on his head. There are injuries on the hands and head. An X-ray

¶62

9

¶63

was recommended. The head injury was likely caused by a hard or sharp object. The reports of the above injuries are Ex.P/ 10, P/ 11, P/12, and P/13 respectively.

¶64

Dr. P.C. Thakur (P.W.-14) stated that on 17.07.05 he was questioned by the Police Station Nandghat in which he had told that the injuries suffered by Shri Pradeep and Manish Pandey as mentioned in the report Ex.P/13 and Ex.P/10 could be serious and death could be possible in the absence of treatment. He marked the blood stained clothes of the injured and returned them to the police for chemical examination. On 10.10.05 a weapon (farsa) was brought for examination by the police chowkidars and it was examined. The doctor has given report marked as E. P/16 stating the length of the sharp edge of which was 6 inches, width 4 inches, length of the handle was 3 feet 4 inches. The injuries sustained by Manish Pandey could have been caused by the above mentioned thing.

¶65

Thus, the prosecution has been fully successful in proving the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court does not find that there is any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

¶66

As regards the sentence awarded to the appellants. Considering the fact that the appellants are continuously facing criminal trial since 2006 and 20 years have been elapsed. The appellants belong to one family, in which there are four women. Considering the age of the appellants at present, the short sentence awarded by

¶67

10

¶68

the Sessions Court, and there is no previous criminal antecedents against them and the incident arose out of a land dispute, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the appellants are reduced to the period already undergone by them under Section 325 of IPC.

¶69

With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is allowed in part . The appellants are held guilty of committing offence under Sections 325, 147, 148, 323, 447 of IPC and is convicted for the said offence. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants under Section 325 of IPC and the fine of Rs. 500/- imposed by Sessions Court under Section 325 of IPC is enhanced to fine of Rs. 1000/- to each appellant. Since the appellants have already paid the fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 325 of IPC, therefore each appellant is directed to pay balance of Rs. 500/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶70

Learned counsel for the applicant in criminal revision submits that the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that as per the unrefuted version of the prosecution witness no. 19 (Doctor) it was established beyond doubt that the injuries caused was likely to cause death in the normal course. In such a circumstance the acquittal of the non-applicants from the charges under Section 307 of IPC has caused grave injustice to the appellant and his family members who have been put under the risk of their lives by the accused persons.

¶71

11

¶72

Heard learned counsel for the applicant in criminal revision.

¶73

After the appreciation of evidence and record available, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Sessions Court has acquitted the non-applicants no. 1 to 8 from the charges under Section 307 of IPC after applying its judicial mind and considering the evidence available on record. Therefore, this Court does not find any irregularity or infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District- Durg (C.G.).

¶74

As a result, the Criminal Revision bearing CRR No. 827 of 2012 stands dismissed.

¶75

The appellants are reported to be on bail. Surety and personal bond earlier furnished at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

¶76

Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

¶79

Madhurima

Hem Lal and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hem Lal and Ors. 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

Gajendra Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Tandi @ Kaju Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rohit Kumar Navrange Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Manish Pandey Vs Hemlal and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Priya Mishra Vs National Testing Agency