Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 248 (CHH)

BANSINGH v. STATE OF M. P. (NOW C. G. )

2011-07-26

SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2011
ORDER 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 2nd of September, 1999 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 34/99 by the First Additional Session Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur. The said appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 24th of February, 1999 passed in Criminal Case No. 377/98 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bastar at Jagdalpur. The Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the applicants u/ss 147 & 323/149 IPC and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs. 100/- each and R.I. for 6 months & to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under each count. The conviction and sentences awarded by the Magistrate have been confirmed by the Session Judge. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The allegations are that on 9.11.94 at about 10.00 a.m., the applicants formed an unlawful assembly, committed rioting and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly caused simple hurt to the members of the complainant-party. A report was lodged by complainant-Kamlu on 9.11.94. It is an admitted fact that there was a land dispute between Kamlu (complainant) and the applicants. A civil suit for declaration of title i.e. Civil Suit No. 147-A/98 was filed by applicant- Bansingh & others. The judgment and decree was also passed in the Civil Suit in favour of the applicants/plaintiffs on 30.9.98. The quarrel took place between the parties when complainant- Kamlu had gone to fetch the paddy crops of the disputed land. The case of the prosecution is that the applicants were harvesting the paddy crops which was resisted by the complainant which resulted into quarrel between both the parties. 3. Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants, has not challenged the conviction of the applicants u/ss 147 & 323/ 149 IPC. He only argued on sentence. He submitted that the fine sentences awarded to the applicants be maintained, however, the jail sentences awarded to them be reduced to the period already undergone. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Yadav, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgments passed by the courts below. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the courts below. 6. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Yadav, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgments passed by the courts below. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the courts below. 6. There is ample evidence on record to hold that the applicants formed an unlawful assembly, committed rioting and in furtherance of the common object of that assembly they assaulted the members of the complainant-party. The report was promptly lodged by the complainant on the same day and medical examinations of the victims were conducted and injuries sustained by them were proved by Dr. J.M. Saxena (PW-2). On due consideration of the entire material on record, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and findings recorded by the two courts that the applicants were liable for punishment u/ss 147 & 323/149 IPC. 7. So far as question of awarding jail sentences are concerned, it is important to keep in mind the "doctrine of just desert" 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 underlying principle. The punishment must not be disproportionately great is a corollary of 'just desert" which is governed by the same principle which says that there cannot be a punishment without guilt and the basic element behind the principle is the proportion between crime and punishment. However, the 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 in force. In the present case, the incident occurred on 9.11.94 when a quarrel took place between the two groups regarding harvesting of the paddy crops, on which both the groups were claiming their rights. A Civil Suit for declaration of title was also filed and the decree was passed in favour of the applicants. The applicants were on bail during the pendency of the criminal case and also during the pendency of the criminal appeal. Further their sentences were suspended by this Court in the year 1999 and since then they are on bail. The applicants, thus, have already undergone for a period of more than one month in this matter. The applicants were on bail during the pendency of the criminal case and also during the pendency of the criminal appeal. Further their sentences were suspended by this Court in the year 1999 and since then they are on bail. The applicants, thus, have already undergone for a period of more than one month in this matter. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in the background of the above factual scenario of land dispute between the parties, and further that the applicants were throughout on bail since the year 1999, I do not deem it appropriate to send them jail once again. I am of the view that the period already undergone by the applicants (more than one month) is sufficient for the offence u/s 323/149 IPC. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the applicants u/s 147 IPC are confirmed. Their conviction u/s 323/149 IPC is also confirmed. However, the jail sentences awarded to them are reduced to the period already undergone. The fine sentences awarded u/s 323/149 IPC are maintained. Revision Partly Allowed.