Back
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 723 of 2012
1. K.Shriniwas Rao @ Kinni S/o K. Uma Maheshwar Rao Aged About
18 Years R/o W.R.S. Colony, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Sonu Bahadur Lama S/o Padma Bahadur Lama (Thapa) Aged About 18 Years R/o W.R.S. Colony, P.S. - Khamtarai, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Suresh Pille S/o Venu Gopal Pille Aged About 18 Years R/o Qtr. No.
138/2, W.R.S. Colony, P.S. - Khamtari, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through- District Magistrate, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent CRA No. 772 of 2012 Gajendra Lohiya @ Gajju Giri S/o Raju Lohiya Aged About 19 Years R/o Qtr. No. 67/7 W.R.S. Colony, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through - District Magistrate, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Indira Tripathi, Adv.
For State/Respondent : Mr. B.P. Banjare, Dy. G.A. For Objector/complainants : Mr. Triveni Shankar, Adv.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Ora l Order
Date : 24 / 08 /202 2
1. These present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.08.2012 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.), in S.T. No. 163/2010 whereby, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants and sentenced as under:-
| S.No. | Name of the Appellants | Conviction | Sentence |
| 1. | (i) K. Shriniwas Rao @ Kinni, | U/s 307/34 of the IPC. | R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 5 days. |
| (ii) Sonu Bahadur Lama | |||
| (iii) Suresh Pille | |||
| 2. | Gajendra Lohiya @ Gajju Giri | U/s 307 of the IPC. | R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 5 days. |
| U/s 25(1)(a) of Arms Act. | R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 5 days. | ||
| U/s 27 of Arms Act. | R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 5 days. All sentences shall run concurrently. |
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.06.2010 at about 5 p.m., the complainant had gone for a walk, when he stood near Solhapuri Mata, W.R.S. Colony, four persons of the W.R.S. colony namely Gajendra Giri, Sonu Thapa, Suresh And Kinni came there and started abusing to the complainant and one of them namely Gajendra Giri took out his knife and caused injuries upon the complainant with the intention to kill him, on being raised a voice by the complainant, the crowd including witnesses Sunil and Avinash Soni started to gather there and looking to them the appellants fled away from the spot. Complainant Babu Khan and Sunil were admitted to the hospital, police went to the hospital and lodged Dehati Nalisi vide Exhibit-P/7 and lodged FIR vide Exhibit-P/9 against the appellants. Dr. Sushil Meghani (PW-2) examined the complainants and gave his report vide exhibits -P/2 and P/3. The memorandum statement of Gajendra was recorded vide Exhibit-P/12 and a knife was recovered from the possession of the appellant vide exhibit-P/13. Appellants were arrested vide Exhibits- P/14, P/15, P/16 and P/11. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed and learned trial Court framed the charge under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 25(1)(a), 27 of the Arms Act against Gajendra and 324 r/w 34 of IPC against the other appellants.
3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. One witness has been examined by the accused persons in their defence. Statement of the appellants/accused 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.
4. Upon due consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused/appellants as described in the above-mentioned column before para-2. Hence these appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the complainants submits that with the passing of time, the applicants and the complainants have amicably settled their dispute outside the court and presently are residing peacefully without any enmity. Therefore, the application under Section 320 (5) r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may kindly be allowed and the offence may be compounded.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to the law and facts available on record. She further submits that the testimony of the complainants and the other witnesses are not at all reliable and trustworthy and on the basis of such evidence, the conviction of the appellants is not proper. The finding of the trial Court is contrary to the settled principles of law and it is clear from the report of
