Advocates:
['ANURAG JHA', '', 'AJAY AYACHI', 'JAILAL YADAV', 'AKHTAR HUSSAIN', 'ISHWAR JAISWAL', 'V C OTTALWAR', 'KIRAN JAIN', 'RAJESH JAIN', 'Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal', 'A G']

1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRA No. 454 of 2015

1. Raza @ Raja Pathan S/o Yunus Pathan Aged About 28 Years R/o Mangali

Bazaar Gourela P.S. Gaurela District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. Sharavan Sonker S/o Ramsanjeevan Sonkar Aged About 23 Years

3. Lalla Sonker S/o Kishore Sonker Aged About 21 Years

Both above 2 and 3 R/o Samta Nagar Gaurela P.S. Gaurela, District Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh

----Appellants

Versus

 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Pendra, District Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

For Appellant

:

Shri Rajesh Jain, Advocate

For Respondent/State

:

Ms. Madhunisha Singh, PL for the State

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order On Board

10/08/2018

1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 23.02.2015 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in S.T. No.38/2012

whereby the appellant No.1 Raza @ Raja Pathan has been convicted under

Sections 307/149 (twice), 148/149 & 506 (Part - 2) IPC & under Sections 25 (1)

(1- B) (A) and 27 (2) of Arms Act and has been sentenced for 10 years RI under

Section 307/149 IPC and a fine of Rs.500/- and in absence of payment of fine,

2

additional 2-2 months RI was ordered for, he has further been sentenced to 1

year R.I. under Section 148/149 IPC and fine of Rs.100/- and in absence of

payment of fine, additional 1 month RI was ordered for, further has been

sentenced to 1 year R.I. under Section 506 (part -2) IPC and fine of Rs.100/-

and in absence of payment of fine, additional 1 month R.I. was ordered for, he

has been sentenced to 1 years R.I. under Section 25 (1) (1-B) (A) of Arms Act

and fine of Rs.100/- and in absence of payment of fine, additional 1 month R.I.

was ordered for and lastly the appellant No.1 has been sentenced to 7 years

R.I. under Section 27 (2) of Arms Act and fine of Rs.100/- and in absence of

payment of fine, additional 1 month R.I. was ordered for. The appellants No.2

& 3 Sharavan Sonker and Lalla Sonker have been convicted under Sections

307/149 (twice), 148/149 & 506 (Part - 2) IPC and both of them have been

sentenced for 10 years RI under Section 307/149 IPC and a fine of Rs.500/-

and in absence of payment of fine, additional 2-2 months RI was ordered for

and have further been sentenced to 1 year R.I. under Section 148/149 IPC and

fine of Rs.100/- and in absence of payment of fine, additional 1 month RI was

ordered for and lastly they have been sentenced to 1 year R.I. under Section

506 (part -2) IPC and fine of Rs.100/- and in absence of payment of fine,

additional 1 month R.I. was ordered for.

2. Brief facts of this case are that on 05.06.2012, the complainant Rakesh Gupta

made a report that on 04.06.2012 at about 9 pm while he was at his Dhaba, at

that time Sharavan Sonker (A2) and his friends had their meal. Subsequently,

at the time of payment, they entered into altercation with the manager namely

3

Peetamber. The complainant thereafter intervened and Shravan Sonker (A2)

entered into altercation and gave threat that he will teach him a lesson.

Subsequently, at about 11.30 pm Sharavan Sonker (A2), Raza @ Raja Pathan

(A1), one Ravi, Lalla Sonker (A3), Nahid Ansari and Ravindra @ Ravi Banjara

came back armed with Pistol, Gupti, sword and club and entered into the

Dhaba. Thereafter with the allegation that he has taken more money caught

hold of the complainant and Raza @ Raja Pathan (A1) took out a pistol and

shot fire to the complainant which he tried to avert but he sustained bullet injury

on his back. At that time, Sharavan Sonker and Lalla also started assaulting by

way of Gupti and sword. Peetamber, the manager of the Dhaba was also

assaulted. Thereafter, the appellants fled away.

3. The dehatinalisi was made by Ex. P-12 and thereafter the First Information

Report was lodged vide Ex. P-22. Injured Rakesh Gupta and Peetamber were

rushed to hospital and were subjected to medical examination and were

admitted to the hospital. Subsequently, the appellants/accused w