NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 459 of 2011 Balluram Sahu S/o Gariba Sahu, aged about 25 years R/o Neurgaon, Police Station: Kunda, District: Kabeerdham, Kawardha, C.G. ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station: Kunda, District: Kabeerdham (Kawardha), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 10.06 .2025 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 06.08.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2010 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabeerdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) whereby, the appeal of the applicant filed against the judgment dated 07.07.2010 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandariya, District: Kabeerdham (Kawardha) in Criminal Case No. SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.06.11 14:09:12 +0530 306 of 2008 wherein, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below: Conviction Sentence U/s 324 of IPC RI for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for 5 days. U/s 498-A of IPC RI for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for 5 days. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the marriage of the complainant Durpati Bai was solemnized with the applicant in the year 2004. It is alleged that, on 11.06.2008, the present applicant assaulted the complainant with the help of club made of Babool Wood and then he set her on fire by pouring Kerosene Oil over her. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under Section 323, 324 & 498- A of IPC were registered against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid section was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandariya, District: Kabeerdham (Kawardha) (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted & sentenced them as mentioned in the Para No. 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 06.08.2011, dismissed the appeal of applicant upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 18 days i.e. from 06.08.2011 to 23.08.2011, he is facing the lis since June 2008, i.e. for about 17 years, he has no criminal antecedents and the fine amount has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the statements of PW-1 Durpati Bai (complainant) supported by her mother PW-2 Panchobai, PW-3 Dr. P.L. Kurre who has proved the M.L.C Report vide Ex. P/4 wherein, burn injury was simple in nature and other evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is a correct finding of fact and I hereby affirm the said finding. Page 4 of 4 8. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone about 18 days, he is facing the lis since June 2008 and there is no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed. 10. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh