1 2025:CGHC:8487 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 138 of 200 8 • Ravishankar Vishwakarma S/o Chandrika Vishwakarma aged about 19 years, R/o Village – Peediya, P.S. Sitapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: P.S. Sitapur, District – Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 18 / 02 /202 5 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.2008 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge (SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), Sessions Block – Sarguja, at Ambikapur (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 40/2007 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.02.20 10:38:16 +0530 2 U/s 325 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 4 months. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.04.2007 Panchayat meeting was held at village Peediya in the matter of Cock killing. In the panchayat appellant and other person have been fined. Complainant Rajaram (PW-5) told that matter should be sent to police. The appellant lost his self control and pushed the victim on a cement road, due to which Rajaram Sustained injury and got fracture on his right hand. FIR was registered against the appellant and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.2008, learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2007, and thereby more than 17 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about 36 years and he has already 3 remained in jail for about 4 days, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses C.D. Tandon (PW-4), Rajaram Bhagat (PW-5) and Dr. M.K. Jain (PW-6), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC. 9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 01.04.2007 about 17 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellant has been convicted under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and the victim sustained a fracture on 3rd and 4th metacarpal bone of right hand only, further considering the fact that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 4 days, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back the appellant to jail. Hence, 4 appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC. However, the fine amount of Rs. 2000/- imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of the fine amount imposed/enhanced by this Court today, the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 3 months. Fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted. 11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12 Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 13 Record of the trial Court be sent along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu