1 2025:CGHC:1815 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 171 of 2014 Manisha Bajaj W/o Anil Bajaj Aged About 45 Years R/o Vaishali Nagar, Police Station - Civil Line, District- Bilaspur C.G. , ... Applicant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Line, District - Bilaspur C.G. 2. Narayan Awasthi S/o Ramawtar Awasthi Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Sirgitti, P.S. Tarbahar, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Surya Dangi, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Siddharth Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.01.2025 1. Heard Ms. Surya Dangi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Bharat Gulbani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent No. 1/State and Mr. Siddharth Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant said that Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, who was the earlier counsel for the applicant has been appointed as a State Panel. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.14 18:17:46 +0530 2 3. The applicant/complainant has preferred this criminal revision, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.06.2013 passed by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 51/2012 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 452 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 03-03 months, respectively. All sentence will run concurrently. 4. The prosecution story in brief, is that, the respondent No.2/accused on 30.09.2011 at about 17:30PM, forcefully entered the house of the applicant and stabbed her daughter, namely, Ruchi Bajaj and the applicant. The applicant/victim received serious wound on her stomach due to which one of her kidney had to be removed from the body. The named F.I.R. was lodged before the Police Station Civil Lines where the Crime No. 485/2011 was registered and the respondent No.2/accused and another were arrested on charges of under Sections 452, 307 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. After the investigation Police had filed the charge-sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who after consideration committed the case to 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). The learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge vide its order dated 24.06.2013 held that the accused Narayan Awasthi (respondent No. 2) with a premeditated mind entered the house of the applicant put the gun on the head of applicant’s daughter due to which she got scared and ran towards her mother (applicant), that the respondent No. 2 followed applicant's daughter to the room and stabbed the applicant 3 thrice in the stomach and stabbed the daughter. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has held that the injury received by the applicant was of such a nature that if she was not treated in time, she might have died. The learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence produced before the Court held the respondent No. 2 guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 452 and 307 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to 3 years R.I. and 7 years (two counts) imprisonment respectively and ordered both sentences to run concurrently. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits the learned Trial Court has imposed inadequate sentence upon the respondent No. 2 for the offence punishable under section 307 and 452 of I.P.C. The learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge vide its order dated 24.06.2013 held the accused Narayan Awasthi (respondent no. 2) guilty of committing attempt to murder and it was also found that the injuries were of such a nature that if she was not treated in time the appellant might have died. It is submitted that on the basis of this distinction the punishment is imposed; I.e. if the act is committed with an intention to cause death the punishment inflicted is imprisonment for a term which may extend upto 10 years and if hurt is caused due to such act the punishment inflicted is imprisonment for life term. It is further submitted that the act of the accused (respondent no. 2) was to cause the death of applicant and with such intention the accused stabbed the applicant due to which one of the kidney of her had to be removed. The respondent No. 2 be punished with a sentence for the imprisonment for life in the interest of justice. The respondent No. 2/accused has been involved in many criminal activities and the manner in which he has committed the crime is not only shocking to the applicant but had terrorized the whole city of Bilaspur, thus. it will 4 be against the justice to permit the respondent No. 2 to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such cruel acts. To give the lesser punishment to the respondent No. 2 would be against the interest of justice and the common man will loose faith in Courts, therefore it is prayed that the respondent no. 2 be punished with the extreme sentence as provided by law in this behalf. Thus, the impugned orders passed by the appellate Court is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the respondent No.2 has already served out his jail sentence as has been awarded by the learned trial Court and was released after completion of said jail sentence and has also deposited the fine amount imposed upon him by the trial Court. Learned State counsel also supports the impugned judgment and order dated 24.06.2013 passed by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 51/2012, whereby the revision preferred by the respondent No.2 has been allowed, by which he has been discharged from the charges under Sections 452, 307/34 (two counts) of the IPC, and he further submits that the respondent No.2 has rightly been discharged form the charges and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the judgments/orders of the trial Court 5 as well as the appellate Court, it transpires that the applicant has already served out his jail sentence as has been awarded by the learned trial Court and was released after completion of said jail sentence and has also deposited the fine amount imposed upon him by the trial Court, hence, after fully applying mind the appellate Court as well as trial Court have passed the impugned orders and there is no any illegality, infirmity or any jurisdictional error committed while passing the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being deviod of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti