Makrand Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.05.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge of Special Court, Raipur (C.G.) (SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989), in Special S.T. No. 173/2001 whereby, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under :-

Conviction

Sentence

U/s 294  of IPC

R.I. for 2 months.

U/s 341 of IPC

R.I. for 1 month.

U/s 332 of IPC

R.I.  for  1  year  and  fine  of  Rs.  1000/-,  in  default  of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 2 months.

U/s 506 of IPC

R.I. for 6 months.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.07.2001, at about 3:00 p.m., when the complainant – Shri D.K. Banshwar, the then C.M.O., Nagar Palik Parishad, Bhatapara, was returning to his office, the accused/appellants stopped him near the gate of the office of Nagar Palika Parishad, and started assaulting him and abusing him by using filthy language by referring his caste and also threatened to kill him. At the time of the incident, one Sohanlal Ratre had seen the offence and intervened. Thereafter, complainant Dinesh Kumar Banshwar PW-4 lodged a written report before the police. On the said report police investigated the matter and during the investigation seized the shirt worn by the complainant. The complainant Dinesh Kumar and Sohanlal Ratre were being examined medically and police collected the caste certificate of the complainant. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed for the offence 341 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, read with Section 294 of IPC and 332, 323 and 506 of IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda-Bazar, against the accused/appellants.

So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment dated 01.05.2004, learned Special Judge has acquitted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC & 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2001, and thereby more than 22 years have rolled by since then. The appellants namely Makrand Singh and Alok Jaiswal has already remained in jail for about 6 days and the appellant namely Ballu @ Byasnarayan @ Bablu has already remained in jail for about 7 days and the appellant Makrand Singh is aged about 58 years, appellant Alok Jaiswal is aged about 44 years and the appellant Ballu @ Byasnarayan is aged about 52 years at present, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the State/Respondent opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment.

Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of Dr. Rakesh Kumar (PW-1), Himanshu Tiwari (PW-2), Santosh Kumar (PW-3), Dinesh Kumar (PW-4) and Sohan Lal Ratre (PW-10), establish the involvement of the accused/appellants in the crime in question beyond reasonable doubt. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Court below regarding the conviction of the appellants under Sections 294, 341, 332 and 506 of the IPC.

As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 19.07.2001 about 22 years ago and the appellants are aged about 50 years at present and appellants namely Makrand Singh and Alok Jaiswal has already remained in jail for about 6 days and appellant namely Ballu @ Byasnarayan @ Bablu has already remained in jail for about 7 days, therefore, their sentence is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back the appellants to jail. Hence, the appellants are sentenced as follows:

Conviction U/s

Sentence by trial Court

Imposed fine amount by trial court

Sentence by this Court

Enhanced fine amount by this Court

294 of IPC

R.I. for 2 months

Nil

Reduced      to the         period already undergone   by the Appellants

500/-  each,  in default         of payment additional  R.I. for 1 month.

341 of IPC

R.I. for 1 month

Nil

Reduced      to the         period already undergone   by the Appellants

Nil

332 of IPC

R.I. for 1 year

1000/-   each, in   default   of payment additional R.I. for 2 months.

Reduced      to the         period already undergone   by the Appellants

3000/-    each, in   default   of payment additional  R.I. for 3 months.

506 of IPC

R.I. for 6 months

Nil

Reduced      to the         period already undergone   by the Appellants

500/-  each,  in default         of payment additional  R.I. for 1 month.

The enhanced fine amount shall be payable within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any amount has already been paid towards the fine, the same shall be adjusted in the amount of fine imposed/enhanced by this Court.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.

Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.