2026:CGHC:11522 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1152 of 2018 Rajkumar S/o Ramdhani Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Madanpur, Aamapara, Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant.

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station In-Charge, PS-

Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the Appellant : Ms. Soniya Kuldeep, Advocate For the State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board

10.03.2026

1. Challenge in the criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment

of conviction and sentence dated 06.07.2018 passed in Special

Session Case No.60/2016, by which, learned Special Session

Judge, (Atrocities), Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-

Ramanujganj, (CG), convicted the appellant for offence

punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo maximum Simple Imprisonment for 03 months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo additional SI for 07 days.

2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.01.2016, appellant alongwith co-accused/Ramdhani have assaulted the complainant and his mother, abused them in filthy language and also humiliate them knowing that they belong to scheduled cast community. Based on report, FIR was registered against the appellant and he has been arrested in the alleged crime/offence.

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offence under Sections 294, 323, 506 of I.P.C, Section 3(1-10) of SC/ST (Atrocities) Act and Section 4 & 5 of the Tonhi Pratadna Act and based upon which, trial Court framed the charge against the appellant.

4. In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total

11 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication.

5. After completion of trial, trial Court acquitted the appellant for the offence under the SC/ST (Atrocities) Act and Tonhi Pratadna Act, however, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and is confining his argument to the quantum of sentence only. He submits that incident had taken place in the year 2016, there was no pre-meditation and on the spur of moment incident had taken place, it was first offence of appellant and, thereafter, he had not indulged himself in any other criminal activity, appellant has already undergone the jail sentence from 14.07.2016 to 22.07.2016, therefore, no purpose would be served by again sending the appellant to jail after lapse of more than 09 years. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that looking to the nature of offence, leniency should not be shown to appellant herein.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.

9. Though learned counsel for appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record.

10.Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond re