Chattisgarh High Court
Sukeshwar And Another vs State Of C.G on 20 April, 2022
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 263 of 2002
1. Sukheshwar S/o Kartikram Patel, aged 22 years,
2. Sukhdeo S/o Kartikram Patel, aged about 21 years
Both R/o. Village Jarve, P. S. Baradwar, District- Janjgir-
Champa (Chhattisgarh)
---- Appellants
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Adv.
For Respondent/State : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order On Board
20.04.2022
1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.03.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, Sessions Division, Bilaspur (CG) in Sessions Trial No. 201/2001 whereby, the learned Court below has acquitted the appellants of the offence punishable under Sections 450, 307 of IPC and convicted them for the offence as under:-
Conviction & Sentence for Appellant No. 1 Sukheshwar Conviction Sentence U/s 354 of IPC R. I. for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.
U/s 324 of IPC R. I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.
Conviction & Sentence for Appellant No. 2 Sukhdeo Conviction Sentence U/s 452 of IPC R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with 2 default stipulation.
U/s 324 of IPC R. I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.
2. The prosecution story in short is that on 05.02.2001, at Village Jarve, when the victim went to the boring to fetch water, at that time, appellant Sukheshwar caught hold of her with intention to outrage her modesty but anyhow she disentangled herself and narrated the story to her mother. Thereafter, accused Sukheshwar and Sukhdeo went to the house of victim, dragged her out of her house and assaulted with the help of Axe (Tangi) and Spear (Bhala) due to which she sustained injuries. If is further alleged that when one Sundarlal tried to intervene, accused Sukhdeo assaulted him also. Based on that, offence has been registered against the appellants. During investigation Axe(Tangi) and Spear (Bhala) were seized from the possession of appellants.
3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges leveled against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. Appellants have also examined one witness namely Foolsai in their defence.
4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.03.2002, learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the appellants of the charge under Sections 450 & 307 of IPC and convicted them for the aforementioned offence. Hence, this appeal filed by the appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is erroneous and bad in law as it has been passed without proper consideration of the facts of the case. It is further submitted that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution in this case. Furthermore, trial Court has 3 erred in believing the interested witnesses who are closely related. The prosecutrix has clearly admitted in her statement shat she was standing on the door of her house and, in her statement, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellants entered her house, even though learned trial Court has convicted the appellant Sukhdeo under Section 452 of IPC which is erroneous and bad in law, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.
6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the prosecutrix (PW-3) has categorically made her statement against the appellants and she has also lodged a prompt FIR. Furthermore, Medical Officer, Dr. Jagdish Singh (PW-13) and Investigating Officer, M.L. Patel (PW-14) have also supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment.
8. Prosecutrix (PW-3) has stated in para 3 of her statement that:-
Þ'kke dks 6 cts eSa fn'kk eSnku djus xbZ Fkh mlds ckn eS vius ?kj okil vk xbZ FkhA mlds ckn ?kj ds njokts ds ikl pkS[kV ls lk<s lkr cts jkr dks vkjksih lq[knso esjs gkFk dks idMdj [khaprs gq;s cksfjax ds ikl ys x;sAß
9. Laxmin (PW-1) who is sister of the prosecutrix has also stated in her statement that:-
'kke ds djhc 7&8 cts vfHk;qDrx.k gekjs ?kj esa ijlk vkSj Vkaxh ysdj vk;s rFkk ;s yksx gekjs ?kj ds cjkens esa vkdj Qjlk vkSj Vkaxh iVdus yxs vkSj dgus yxs fd ?kj ls ckgj fudyksA Furthermore, this fact has been supported by Rambai (PW-2) & Prameshwar Singh (PW-4) as well.
10. Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code covers the crime in 4 question which reads as under:-
"House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.- Whoever commits house- trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to file."
11. It is clear from the statements of the prosecution witnesses that appellants have not entered the house of prosecutrix, they stood in front of the door but the learned trial Court convicted the appellant Sukhdeo for the offence under Section 452 of IPC which is not in accordance with the oral evidence of prosecutrix and other witnesses.
12. Prosecutrix (PW-1), her sister Laxmin (PW-1) and her mother Rambai (PW-2) have stated that the injuries were caused by the appellants. The prosecutrix has reported the incident to the concerned police station on the same day. Medical Officer Dr. Jagdish Singh (PW-13) has examined the prosecutrix and submitted his medical report as Ex P14 to EX.17 in which the said injuries were found. Considering the same, it is clear that the trial Court has convicted the appellants under Sections 324 & 354 which is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record.
13. In light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the findings of learned trial Court in convicting the appellant Sukhdeo for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the IPC is not sustainable. Therefore, appellant Sukhdeo is acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 452 of the IPC. So far as the conviction under Sections 354 & 324 of IPC is concerned, it is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence of record and need not be rectified.
14. As regards sentence under Sections 354 and 324 of IPC, keeping in view the fact that the incident had taken place in 5 the year 2009, and the appellant Sukheshwar and Sukhdev have already remained in jail for about 3 months and 13 months respectively, therefore, their sentence is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
15. In view of the above consideration, the appeal is partly allowed. Appellant Sukhdeo is hereby acquitted of the offence 452 of the IPC, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant Sukheshwar under Sections 354 & 324 of IPC and appellant Sukhdeo under Section 324 of IPC, they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE V/-