Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 273 (CHH)

Raju v. State of Chhattisgarh

2014-07-18

SANJAY K.AGRAWAL

body2014
ORDER Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('henceforth 'Cr.P.C.'), instant revision has been filed by applicants herein calling in question the conviction for the offence under Section 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth 'IPC') and Section 4 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937(for short 'the Act, 1937) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month for each of the aforesaid offences. The prosecution case as unfolded during course of trial is as under: "1.1 Father of complainant Gour Singh, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community, had taken a loan of ` 3,500/- from applicant No. 1-Raju alias Rajesh Agrawal. It is alleged that on the date of incident i.e. 23.01.2002 accused/applicant No. 1 took Gaur Singh in his bike at his home and also confined the buffalo cart of the complainant in his house. Matter was reported to the jurisdictional police station; and after investigation all the applicants including applicant No. 3 (since deceased) were charge-sheeted for offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act, 1989') read with Section 342/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Act, 1937. 1.2 Present applicant Nos. 1 & 2 abjured the guilt and entered into defence. In order to bring home the offences, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses and brought four documents in support of its case whereas the applicants neither examined any witness nor brought any document in support of their case. 1.3 Learned Special Judge, by its order dated 25.06.2005 passed in Special Sessions Trial Case No. 236/2002, acquitted the applicants of the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989, however, they were convicted for the offence under Section 342/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Act, 1937. Against this order, instant revision has been filed." 2. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that learned Special Judge has committed manifest legal error in convicting the accused/applicant Nos. 1 & 2 and applicant No. 3 (since deceased) for the aforesaid offences. Alternatively, he would submit that the sentence awarded is excessive looking to the guilt of the applicant Nos. 1 & 2 and as such the period undergone by the applicant Nos. 1 & 2 and applicant No. 3 (since deceased) for the aforesaid offences. Alternatively, he would submit that the sentence awarded is excessive looking to the guilt of the applicant Nos. 1 & 2 and as such the period undergone by the applicant Nos. 1 & 2 be held sufficient, by modifying the sentence so awarded. 3. Opposing the submission made on behalf of the applicants, Shri Prasun Bhaduri, learned counsel would submit that the finding recorded by the Special Judge convicting and sentencing the accused/applicant Nos. 1 & 2 & applicant No. 3 (since deceased) is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records of court below with utmost circumspection. 5. The question for consideration is whether the offence under Section 342/34, IPC and Section 4 of the Act of 1937 has been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. 6. The Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 has been enacted to provide for protection of debtors from molestation and intimidation by their creditors. 7. Section 3(b) of the Act, 1937 has defined molestation by stating that a person who, with intent to cause another person to abstain from doing -- "(a) obstructs, or use violence to, or intimidates, such other person, or (b) persistently follows such other person from place to place or interferes with any property owned or used by him or deprives him of, or hinders him in, the use shall not be punishable under Section 4 of the Act, 1937. (c) loiters or does any similar act at or near a house or other place where such other person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, shall be deemed to molest such other person: Provided that a person who attends at or near such house or place in order merely to obtain or communicate information shall not be deemed to molest." 8. The penalty for contravention of Section 3 of the Act has been provided in Section 4 of the Act, which reads as under:-- "4. Penalty for molestation.--Whoever molests, or abets the molestation of, any debtor for the recovery of a debt owned by him to his creditor shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both." 9. Penalty for molestation.--Whoever molests, or abets the molestation of, any debtor for the recovery of a debt owned by him to his creditor shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both." 9. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, according to the case of the prosecution, that on 3.1.2002 at village Thuthapali, the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 & applicant-No. 3 (since deceased) with their common intention, in order to recover the debt, they wrongfully detained the buffalo cart belonging to Gour Singh, which was seized from the house of applicant No. 3 (since deceased) vide Annexure P-4. Witnesses of seizure memo Kawal Singh (PW-8) and Adal Singh Gond (PW-9) have become hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution that any buffalo cart owned by Gour Singh was seized in their presence from the possession of the applicants. Thus, the seizure of buffalo cart from the present applicants have not been proved by the prosecution. 10. Admittedly, buffalo cart was owned by Gour Singh but since it has not been proved to be wrongfully interfered with or deprived by the present applicants as seizure of the said bullock cart from the present applicants has not been established by the prosecution, thus, offence under Section4(b) of the Act, 1937 for wrongfully interfering with the property of debtor-Gour Singh is not made out against the present applicant Nos. 1 & 2, therefore, the finding recorded by the Special Judge in this regard is set aside and the applicant Nos. 1 & 2 are acquitted of the charge under Section 4 of the Act, 1937. 11. Now, this brings me to the question whether the applicant Nos. 1 & 2 have committed the offence under Section 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code states as under:-- "342. Punishment for wrongful confinement,-- Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. An offence under Section 342, IPC has following essential ingredients:-- (i) Wrongful restraint of a person; (ii) Such restraint must prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits." 13. An offence under Section 342, IPC has following essential ingredients:-- (i) Wrongful restraint of a person; (ii) Such restraint must prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits." 13. In order to prove wrongful confinement, the prosecution has examined Puranlal (PW-1) son of complainant Gour Singh. Kanthiram (PW-2), Shoukilal (PW-3) and Neelamber (PW-5), they have categorically stated that Gour Singh was confined by applicant Nos. 1 & 2 and applicant No. 1 Raju alias Rajesh Agrawal demanded money, which he had given to Gour Singh and ultimately, the matter was reported by Puranlal Dee wan (PW-1) to the then Chief Minister vide Ex. P-1 and, thereafter, the matter was reported to the police station. Thus, there is un-challengeable evidence available on record to hold that applicant Nos. 1 & 2 wrongfully confined the complainant and, therefore, conviction recorded by the Special Judge for offence under Section 342, IPC deserves acceptance and finding in this regard is hereby affirmed. 14. Now comes the question of sentence for offence punishable under Section 342, IPC, keeping in view the fact that offence in question was committed on 23.01.2002; and further considering the fact that applicant Nos. 1 & 2 have already faced a prolonged trial and suffered the trauma of uncertainty arising out of their conviction by the Special Judge. Besides that applicant Nos. 1 & 2 have no criminal antecedents or involvement in any case and after conviction by the Special Judge, they have not misused the liberty granted to them time to time, and the applicant Nos. 1 to 2 remained in jail custody for a period of three days, in my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be served if the substantive sentence, which the applicant Nos. 1 & 2 have already undergone is held sufficient. 15. Resultantly, the revision is partly allowed. Conviction of the applicant Nos. 1 & 2 for offence under Section 4 of the Act, 1937 is set aside and they are acquitted of the said charge. The conviction for offence under Section 342/23, IPC awarded by the Special Judge is maintained; and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The bail bonds of the applicant Nos. 1 & 2 shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The bail bonds of the applicant Nos. 1 & 2 shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. No order as to cost(s). Petition Partly Allowed.