T' ^ HIGH^OUR? QF C11HATTISGARH. BILASPUR Siiigle itencli! jiun'tije Shrt Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Crilffil)ittlAl>B»alNo. 699 of 1995 Kunjram & Others Vs. aidfce of M.P. (Niiw' '•Itutr of Chhattisgarh) JUDQMENT Post for Judgment :/'^/08/2011 Sd/- Sunil Kiimar Sinha Judge •• / -«St. y f HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH, BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J, Criminal Appeal No. 699 of 1995 APPELLANTS RBSPONDENT 1 -Kunjram S/o Sundarwa Satnami, aged about 26 years 2 • Mukundram, S/o Sundarwa Satriami, aged 23 years 3 Gendram alias Boha, S/o Sundarwa, aged 19 years 4 Sundarwa S/o Mahadas Satnami, aged 50 years 5 Boondram @ Konda, S/o Sudarwa, aged 25 years 6 Santosh S/o Lala Satnami, aged 18 years All R/o village Kaneri, P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur yersus SfateofM.P. - (Now State of Chhattisgarh) Throu^h: P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur (Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) Appearance: Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. JUDGMENT (^.08.2011) s (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th of ,/ April, 1'9^5'passed in Session.Trial No. 178/91 by the Second '*1^~ „.. „ .. Additi,Qnal Session Judge7 Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, 1 the appellants have been convicted u/ss 147 8s 325/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and R.I. for 3 years and fine ofRs.l^OOO/-. Criminal ABpeal No. 699 of 1995 KT (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Seven accused persons (A-l to A-7) were prosecuted for the offences punishable u/ss 147 &, 325/149 IPC. Out of them 6 accused persons (A-l to A-6, appellants herein) have been convicted and the 7th accused i.e. Jhumuk Bai has been acquitted. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.7.90 at about 3.00 p.m. the appellants formed an iinlawful assembly, cofflmitted rioting and in furtherance of the common object pf the unlawful assembly assaulted cornplainant- Mehtru (PW-7) who sustained multiple injuries including a crack on his right radius bone. Mehtru (PW-7) had taken the field of Mithailal on Adhiyd (on the condition that after cultivation, he will give half of the produce to the land owner). The field of the accused persons^is sitaiated near the field of Mithail-al. Accused- Sundarwa an'd his son Gendram @ Boha had left their cattle for grazing in the Eeld of Mithailal which was in possession of Mehtru (PW-7). Mehtru removed the cattle from fhe lield. The cattle went towards the iield of accused persons. On this, the accused persons formed unlawful assembly and came to the field of Mehtru and assaulted him by lathis. This was witnessed by Bhagwanti Bai (PW-9 - wife of Mehtru), Kudiya E5ai (PW-4 - mothe.r of Mehtru) and Rajkumar (PW-8). Mehtru(PW-7) was taken to the police station where he lodged the First Information Report (Ex.- P/2). He was sent to the hospital for his medical exaininatien and was examined by Dr. C.P. Aagrey (PW-11) wht) found multiple superficial injuries and contusion on the person ofMehtru. "His report is Ex.-P/3-A. On his advise, Mehtru was sent for X-ray examination. On X-ray examination, it was found that there was no bony injury on the .skull, however there was a crack on the right radius bone. The learned Session Judge relied on the testimonies of the aboye witnesses a'nd held that the appellants were the Criminal Aopeal No. 699 of 1995 merabers of the unlawful assembly; they participated in noting; and in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, they caused above injuries to the con-iplainant; therefore, they were liable for punishment under the aforeraentioned Sections of IPC. Since there was no evidence against accused no. 7 - Jhumuk Bai (A-7), she was acquitted of the charges framed against her. (3) Mrs. Anju Ahuja, learned couhsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that there is no evidence to hold that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly and participated in rioting and there is also no evidence to hold as to who caused injuries to the victim, therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. Altematively, she-also argued that it was a dispute on entry and grazing of cattle 'of the appellants into field of complainant an^ nothing was premeditation; the incident took place 20 years back; the appellants are throughout on bail; therefore, they may not be sent to jaU once again and their sentences may be reduced t&the period already undergone. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these argutfients and supported the judgment passed by the Session Court. ^ / ~ '•«»> (5) I have.'heard learned counsel for the parties at length and I • • : have also perused the records of the session case. m' ^ •s-...-.^ ,,-c€^'i ^-.^••^'-."^ ^ isiy' .^ i •^ .-§-" °<y <;SS!SSSS3£- Criminal Aweal No. 699 of 1995 (6) Mehtru (PW-7) deposed that on the fateful day when he reached to his field one buffalo was grazing his field. He removed out the buffalo. Thereafter his wife and mother also came to the field. They were working in their field. After sometime Kunjram, Sundarwa, Boondram @ Konda, Mukundram, Gendram @ Boha and Santosh all came from village side abusing and shouting upon him. They said that why he had removed out buffalo from his field. He tried to explain them, but they started beating him by lathi He received injuries on his head, back & hands. The incident was witnessed by his mother and wife. The above evidence of Mehtru (PW-7) is corroborated by evidence of Kudiya Bai (PW-4) and Bhagwanti Bai (PW-9). This is further corroborated by the contents of the F.I:R. (Ex.-P/2). The version of the victim is also corroborated by medical report of Dr. C.P. Aagrey (PW-11) and X- ray reports and the evidence of Dr. C.S. Sharma (PW-10) and Dr. J.L. Arora (PW-12), Mehtru (PW-7), Kudiya Bai (PW-4) and Bhagw'anti Bai (PW-9) ' tiave been.. put to lengthy cross- examinations by the defence, but the defence has not been able to elicit any such circumstance on which either fheir testimonies may be discarded or it may be said that they are falsely implicating the-^ppellants in crime in question. Therefore, there is no irifirriiity in the finding recorded by the Session Judge that the •••^ • appellants were the members of the unlawful assembly and they participated in rioting and in furtherance of the common object of the said assembly, they asisaulted Mehtru (PW-7) who received iultiple;injuries including a crack over his right radius bone. '•;?, "^ Criminal Apceal No. 699 of 1995 (7) Now I shall consider the adequacy of the sentences awarded to the appellants. (8) So far as question of awarding jail sentences are concerned, it is important to keep in mind the "doctrine ofjust deserf' which is foundation of a criminal sentence which is to be awarded for a punishment. What one really deserves for punishment for having committed a crime is the uriderlying principle. The punishment must not be disproportionately.great is a coroUary of "just deserf which is governed by the ;>ame principle which says that there cannot be a punishment without guilt and the basic element behind fhe principle is the proportion between crime and punishment. However, fhe determination of the quantum of punishment would always depend upon the ancillary factors which further would be subject to the statutory obligations specifically provided by law i.n force. ri (9) As stated above, the.appellants have been awarded 1 year and 3 years R.I. with fine sentences of Rs.1,000/- u/ss 147 8s 325/149 IPC. The incident took place for a petty reason of removal of the buffalo from the field of the complainant. It is not a case of previous animosity. It appears that on account of removal of cattle, the,2/accused persons went to the village and narrated the story t6 their family ruemb^s who came to the field and quarreled an'd assaulted the victims in above manner. The incident took place more than 21 years liack. The appellants were throughout on bailduring the thal <and also during the appeal as the Criminal AwealNo. 699 of 1995 vatti sentences imposed against them were suspended by the Session Court itself and thereafter by High Court. The documents would show that on the stage of remand they were in jail for about 1 month. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it would^not be appropriate to send the appellants once againjail after such a long time and ends ofjustice would be served, if their jail sentences are reduced to the period already undergone and the fine ,sentences imposed against thein is suitably enhanced. (10) Accordingly, the conviction of fhe appellants u/ss 147 & 325/149 IPC are maintained. However, thejail sentences awarded under these Sections" are reduced to the period concurrently undergone which comes about 1 month. The amount of fine u/s 325/149 IPC is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- each. The appellants are granted 2 months time to deposit the said amount, failing which, they shall be laible to undergo S.I. for 3 months.Any amount paid by the appellants earlier sliall be adjusted in this amount. The order relating to payment of compensation is also maintained, but the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. (11) The appeal is allowed l:o the exten.t indicated above. . / ~ - '»*>- Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge