Tibbat Ram Rathiya @ Gidwa Ekka vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 04.03.2017 passed in Session Trial No.35/2017 by the learned First Additional Sessions

Judge, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh(C.G.) wherein, the Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and

sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation.

According to the case of prosecution, on 31.10.2016, complainant Sushil told the Appellant for doing some work in his field, the Appellant denied the

same. Thereafter, the complainant went alone in his field and at the evening, he returned to his house. The Appellant came to his house for drinking

wine when the complainant refused to give him wine at that point of time the Appellant returned and after some time, the Appellant again came to the

house of the complainant and assaulted him with the help of axe, due to which the complainant sustained injuries. On the basis of above, the matter

was reported by Rafel Toppo (PW-6). Later on statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion

of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the Police. Trial Court framed the charges against the Appellant. To robe the Appellant in the crime-in-

question, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. In the statement of the Appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he has

pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter, however, no defence witness was examined by the Appellant. After completion of trial, the

Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in Para 01 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument to the

sentence part only. He further submits that the Appellant is in jail since 02.11.2016 and completed about 4 years 9 months out of 7 years of jail

sentence, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since 2016. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period

already undergone by him.

On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment.

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the fact that the Appellant is in jail since 02.11.2016 and

completed about 4 years 9 months out of 7 years of jail sentence, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since 2016. I am of the view

that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the Appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the

period already undergone by him.

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the Appellant under Section 307 of the IPC is affirmed and against the conviction he is

sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence for the above offence is also affirmed.

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