1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 192 of 2017 1 - Jagmohan S/o Inder Singh, Aged About 60 Years Caste Teli, 2 - Budhram Sahu, S/o Jagmohan Sahu, Aged About 36 Years 3 - Vishnu Sahu, S/o Jagmohan Sahu, Aged About 35 Years All are R/o Village Saraipali (Sodka), Police Station And Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, ... Applicants/Accused versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicants :Shri Aman Kesharwani, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Smt. Swati Gupta, Panel Lawyer. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 07/05/2026 Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.01.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.06/2016 whereby the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, while convicting and sentencing the applicants as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 325/34 IPC SI for 3 months with fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof, to further under SI for 10 days. Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.05.07 17:49:35 +0530 2 Under Section 323/34 IPC To pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo SI for 15 days. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.03.2006 at about 11:15 am, on account of old rivalry, the applicants assaulted the complainant Chudamani and his son Dharmendra Sahu with lathis and clubs and thereby caused injuries to both of them. On report being lodged to the above effect by the complainant Chudamani (P.W.1), offence under Crime No.89/2006 has been registered at Police Station Sarangarh against the applicants. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh against the applicants, who abjured the charge under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and pleaded non-guilty. 4. The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicants under Sections 325/34 & 323/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo SI for 6 months with fine of Rs.300/- under Section 325/34 IPC and to further undergo SI for 3 months with fine of Rs.200/- and in default thereof, the applicants shall suffer further SI for 10 – 7 days respectively under such sections. In appeal, the appellate Court allowed the appeal partly, as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence, this Revision by the present applicants. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicants and confined his argument to sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the dispute arose between the applicants and the complainant is trivial in nature. He further submits that the applicants 3 are in jail from 11.01.2017 to 17.02.2017, thus, they are incarcerating the jail sentence for a period of more than one month, they have no criminal antecedents and that, they are facing the lis since March, 2006, i.e., for more than 20 years. On these premises, he urged that the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the statement of complainant PW-1 Chudamani supported by the evidence of P.W.2 Dharmendra and medical evidence of P.W.5 Dr. J.R.Dhritlahre, who proved the M.L.C. reports (Ex.P.4 & P.5) and the other evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is a correct finding and I hereby affirm the said finding. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the applicants are in jail for a period of more than one month, they are facing the lis since March, 2006 i.e. for more than 20 years, there are no criminal antecedents against them, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the applicants under Section 325/34 & 323/34 of IPC, the 4 sentence imposed thereunder by the Appellate Court is hereby modified and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine sentence and default sentence is affirmed. 11. It is reported that the applicants are on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in light of Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Samhita, 2023. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani