Chattisgarh High Court
Chhotelal And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr on 8 August, 2022
Page 1 of 5
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 365 of 2010
1.Chhotelal, S/o- Rameshwar, Aged about- 56 years, R/o- Patharala, Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.).
2. Bisambhar, S/o Gourango, Aged about- 50 years, R/o- Boidih, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.).
3. Ranjit, S/o Naro Pradhan, Aged about- 49 years, R/o- Jagdishpur, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.).
4. Chamru Vishal, S/o- Sahdev, Aged about- 50 years, R/o- Narsingpur, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.).
---- Applicants Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through; the District Magistrate, Mahasamund (C.G.).
2. Brajsen Sahu, S/o- Mayadhar Sahu, Aged about- 60 years, R/o- Bhikhapali, P.S. Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.).
---- Non-Applicants CRR No. 368 of 2010
1. Chandramani Pradhan, S/o- Mahadev Pradhan, Aged about 65 years, R/o- Saraipali, Dist- Mahasamund (C.G.).
2. Laxminarayan, S/o- Rameshwar Sahu, Aged about- 63 years, R/ o- Salhetarai, Basna, Dist- Mahasamund (C.G.).
3. Dolamani, S/o- Biharilal Sahu, Aged about- 55 years, R/o- Patharala, Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.).
4. Jejeram, S/o- Kandarp Sau, Aged about- 52 years, R/o- Jhagarandih, P.S. Basna, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.).
5. Barsingo @ Narsing, S/o- Gourango, Aged about- 53 years, R/o- Tala, Basna, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.).
6. Mahadev, S/o- Shri Loknath, Aged about- 55 years, R/o- Baranidadar, P.S. Basna, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.).
7. Udekar, S/o- Shrimadhu, Aged about- 55 years,
8. Chhabilal, s/o- Bhola, Aged about- 55 years, Both Applicant Nos. 7 & 8 are R/o- Bhikhapali, P.S. Basna, Dist.- Mahasamund (C.G.).
Page 2 of 5
9. Shatruhan, S/o- Shri Uderam, Aged about- 56 years, R/o Jagdishpur, P.S. Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.).
10. Shambhukar, s/o- Sudarshan, Aged about- 55 years, R/o- Jhagarandih, P.S. Basna, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.).
11. Bajal Pradhan, S/o- Chetan, Aged about- 65 years, R/o- Jabalpur, P.S. Basna, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.).
12. Haricharan, S/o- Munshiram Pradhan, Aged about- 45 years, R/o. Charbhatha, P.S. Basna, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.).
13. Brijmohan, S/o- Damodar Pradhan, Aged about- 64 years, R/ o- Dumarpali, P.S. Basna, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.). ---- Applicant Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through; the District Magistrate, Mahasamund (C.G.)
2. Brajsen Sahu, S/o. Mayadhar Sahu, Aged about-60 years, R/o- Bhikhapali, P.S. Basna, Dist.- Mahasamund (C.G.).
---- Non-Applicants For Applicants (CRR No. 365 of 2010) :Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Applicants (CRR No. 368 of 2010) :Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate For Non-Applicant No.1/State :Shri Roshan Dubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.08.2022
1. None for the Non-Applicant No.2 though served even in the second round.
2. As both these cases are arising out of same Criminal Case Number i.e. 220/2009 in which 18 accused were prosecuted on complaint filed by Bajrasen Sahu under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'CrPC'). The applicants of both the cases who were prosecuted for the offences punishable Page 3 of 5 under Sections 384, 500 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. Criminal Revision No. 365 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of four accused persons whereas Criminal Revision No. 368 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of 13 accused persons.
4. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithora, Mahasamund (C.G.) convicted the applicants of both the cases for the offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 06-06 months and fine of Rs. 500-500/- to each of the applicants and in default in payment of fine further simple imprisonment for 15-15 days. For the offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of IPC, the applicants were convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500-500/- and in default of payment of fine amount further simple imprisonment for 15-15 days.
5. The applicants of both the cases preferred the appeal before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) bearing Criminal Appeal No. 156/2009 vide judgment dated 19.07.2010, the appellate Court acquitted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 500/34 of IPC and modified the sentence awarded under Section 384 of IPC from simple imprisonment of 6-6 months to fine of Rs. 5,000-5,000/- to each of the applicants and the same has been challenged by the applicants by filing Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. before this Court.
6. The facts of this case are like that the complainant Brajsen Sahu Page 4 of 5 filed a complain under Section 200 of CrPC making allegations that the complainant himself was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and later on, he was acquitted from the said charges. Thereafter money was demanded from him by the present applicants and when he refused to pay the money, he was withdrawn from the society. The complaint case was registered as Criminal Case No. 220/2009. The complainant examined himself as PW/1- Bajrasen, PW/2 Chandramani Pradhan. The applicants abjured the charges and learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record, convicted the applicants as mentioned in the para-2 of this order.
7. That the applicants challenged the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 27.11.2009 in Criminal Case No. 220/2009 before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund and vide judgment dated 19.07.2010, the applicants were acquitted from the charge under Section 500 of IPC and sentence recorded under Section 384/34 of IPC was modified and only fine of Rs. 5,000-5,000/- was imposed upon each of the applicants.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that offence under Section 384 of IPC is not made out against the present applicants because at the time of incident, there were 200-300 persons present when money was demanded from the complainant and the complainant was withdrawn from the society and intentionally applicants were prosecuted by the complainant. He further submits that amount demanded by Page 5 of 5 applicants was not realized. The applicants are poor persons and the amount of fine is at the higher side and they are unable to pay the fine amount.
9. Per contra, the counsel for the State opposes the argument advanced by the counsel for the applicants.
10. From the perusal of the record and judgments passed by the Courts below, it is reflected that learned Courts below taking into consideration the nature of offence committed by the applicants, the applicants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 384 of 34 of IPC., it is evident from records that the applicants took a decision to boycott the non- applicant No.2 for having committed rape of his sister-in-law and when the non-applicant No.2 requested to withdraw the boycott, the applicants demanded Rs. 13,500/-, therefore, the lower appellate Court imposed punishment of fine only, which cannot be termed too harsh. There is concurrent finding with regard to conviction of the applicants. Therefore, in opinion of this Court, the Court below has not acted contrary to the material available on record. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in both the cases and the same are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
11. The applicants are directed to deposit the fine amount within period of three months, if the same has not been deposited earlier before the trial Court. Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim