Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CG) 1409
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Bittu @ Yogesh Das – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRR/373/2016
Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate, Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, P.L.
The prosecution must prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the courts must properly appreciate the evidence and law in reaching their conclusions.
Headnote:
Criminal - Assault and Mischief - Sections 323/34, 435/34 IPC - The court found that the prosecution had proved the charges against the applicants beyond reasonable doubt. The concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court were upheld, with the sentence reduced to the period already undergone and the fine amount enhanced.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant visited a restaurant with his friends and after finishing their meal, they proceeded to the counter to settle the bill. The applicants, who were the owners of the restaurant, demanded immediate payment of the remaining bill amount. This led to a dispute, during which the applicants abused the complainant and assaulted him. They also set the complainant's motorcycle on fire. The complainant filed a complaint, based on which an FIR was registered, and the applicants were charged under Sections 294, 323/34, and 435/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved the charges against the applicants beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the complainant and the eyewitnesses, along with the medical evidence and the seized burnt motorcycle, corroborated the prosecution's case. The concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court were upheld, with the sentence reduced to the period already undergone and the fine amount enhanced.
Issues: Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is just and proper, and based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the prosecution had proved the charges against the applicants beyond reasonable doubt, and the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and law. The court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and enhanced the fine amount.
Final Decision: The revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicants under Sections 323/34 and 435/34 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained, but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount imposed under Section 435 of the IPC is enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- each, and in default of payment, the applicants shall suffer SI for three months. Out of the enhanced fine amount, Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to the injured victim, Moolchand Banjare.
ORDER
1. Applicants have filed this revision petition challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 23.04.2016, passed in Criminal Appeal No.02/2012, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) has maintained the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2011, passed in Criminal Case No.38/2010, by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lormi U/s. 323/34 and 435/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 month, R.I. for 9 months and fine of Rs.500/- - Rs.1000/- respectively plus default stipulation.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that a written complaint was made by complainant Moolchand Banjare alleging that on 20.12.2009, in the night he visited Yuvraj restaurant in Lormi for dinner along with his friends Basant Markandey and Santosh Tiwari. After finishing their meal, they proceeded to the counter to settle the bill, where the accused presented a bill of Rs. 280/-. Complainant paid Rs.200/- and requested that he will pay rest of the amount after sometime due to which the applicants got enraged and on immediate demand of money, applicants abused the complainant and started assaulting him by hands and fists.
Complainant in order to save himself, tried to ran from the spot, he saw that applicants pulled petrol pipe of his motor cycle and set it ablaze. Thereafter, applicants again caught hold of complainant and committed Marpit with him due to which he became unconscious. Based on the written report (Ex.P-2), FIR (Ex.P-3) was lodged. Victim was medically examined vide Ex.P- 5. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-4. Panchnama of burnt motor cycle was prepared vide Ex.P-1. Burnt motor cycle was seized from the spot vide Ex.P-6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against applicants for commission of offence under Section 294, 323, 435, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Applicants were charged with the offence under Section 435/34, 323/34, 294 of the Indian Penal Code. They denied the charges and prayed for trial. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses, to prove the charge, namely Sajid Khan (P.W.-1), Moolchand Banjare (P.W.-2), Basant Markenday (P.W.-3), SantoshTiwari (P.W.-4), Dr. R.S. Ayam (P.W.-5), Arjun Dhimar (P.W.-6), S.S. Dubey (P.W.-7), and Ganesh Kashyap (P.W.-8). Statement of applicants were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied all incriminating evidence appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined in defence.
4. After conclusion of trial, learned trial Court upon appreciation of documentary and oral evidence brought on record by the prosecution, convicted applicants for offence under Section 323/34 and 435/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as mentioned above. The appeal preferred by applicants have been dismissed by the impugned judgment, affirming the conviction and sentence of the applicants.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the conviction against the applicants is erroneous and without there being any cogent and clinching evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove the offence against applicants beyond all reasonable doubt. It is argued that initially complainant party started the dispute regarding payment of bill. When complainant attempted to leave without settling entire bill amount, the applicants demanded payment. This non-payment of bill by the complainant and his friends led to the incident. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court relied on the version of complainant, but there is no independent corroborative evidence of the alleged assault or burning of motorcycle by applicants. Leaned trial Court as well the Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Hence, this revision petition be allowed and the conviction against the applicant be set-aside.
6. In alternate, learned counsel for the applicants submits th
