1 / 5 2025:CGHC:44649 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 565 of 2017 1. Baratram S/o Sonadhar Patel Aged About 62 Years 2. Shaym Sundar S/o Baratram Patel Aged About 42 Years 3. Sundarlal S/o Baratlal Patel Aged About 37 Years 4. Ishwarlal S/o Baratram Patel Aged About 34 Years All are R/o Village Parsada Bade, Caste Mavar, Police Station And Tahsil- Sarangarh District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 02/09/2025 1. Applicants are present before this Court along with their counsel. Their appearance is taken on record. 2. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally. 3. Applicants have filed this revision challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 26.05.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal No.28/2016, by which learned Upper Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District – Raigarh has maintained the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.12.2016, passed in Criminal Case No.760/2004, by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh, PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 5 District – Raigarh convicting and sentenced the applicants in following manner: CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 147 of IPC R.I. for 6 months and fine of ₹ 100; in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 10 days U/s 148 of IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of ₹ 200; in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 20 days U/s 332/149 of IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of ₹ 200; in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 20 days U/s 353/149 of IPC R.I. for 6 months and fine of ₹ 100; in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 10 days U/s 186/149 of IPC R.I. for 1 month and fine of ₹ 100; in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 10 days U/s 294/149 of IPC R.I. for 1 month and fine of ₹ 100; in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 10 days U/s 324/149 of IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of ₹ 200; in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 20 days All the sentences to run concurrently 4. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.06.2004, applicant B.P. Tiwari, posted as Assistant Flying Squad in Raipur Circle, along with his staff was patrolling from Raipur towards Balodabazar, Kasdol, Bhatgaon and Sarsiva in Government Jeep No. CG-02/0317. During patrol, they found a tractor loaded with wood. When signaled to stop, the tractor driver ignored and tried to escape. On being chased, the tractor was stopped in a village. The driver introduced himself as Bartram and admitted he had no documents for the wood. Nearby, a small factory with machines was also found. On inquiry, Bartram said the place was village Parasada. Complainant directed Bartram to take the tractor and wood to Sarsiva Police Station. At this, Bartram, along with his wife and three sons, opposed the action, abused the applicant in filthy language, assaulted him with fists, stones and sticks, and threatened to kill him. As a result, the applicant suffered injuries on his back, right leg and hand. His staff members Ramchandra and Rambart Tiwari were also injured. A report was lodged on the same day at Police Station Sarangarh. On that basis, Crime No. 181/04 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506-B, 323, 353, 186 IPC. After investigation, a charge-sheet 3 / 5 was filed against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506-B, 332, 353, 186, 324, 149 IPC. 5. Applicants were charged with Sections 147,148, 294/149, 186/149, 332/149, 353/149, 324/149 of IPC. Applicants denied the charges and prayed for trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses namely B.P. Tiwari (PW1), Ganesh Ram Verma (PW2), Dr. J.N. Shukla (PW3), Peeladau Sahu (PW4), Ramadhar (PW5), Tok Kumar (PW6), R.B. Singh (PW7), Vinod Singh (P.W.-8), Rajesh Kumar Pandit (P.W.-9), D. Banjare (P.W.-10), Ramesh Prasad Patle (P.W.-11), Pranesh Pandey (P.W.12), Praveen Kumar Pradhan (P.W.-13). Statements of applicants were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied all incriminating evidence appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined by the applicants in defence. 6. After conclusion of trial, learned trial Court, upon appreciation of documentary and oral evidence brought on record by the prosecution, convicted the applicants for offences as mentioned in preceding paragraph No. 1. The appeal preferred by the applicants has been dismissed by the impugned order upholding the conviction and sentence of the applicants for the aforesaid offences. Hence, this revision. 7. Learned counsel for applicants submits that he is not pressing this revision on conviction part of the applicant, but confines his argument to the sentence part only. He submits that looking to facts and circumstances of the case, applicants are villagers, they are not having criminal antecedents against them, they are facing trial since 2004. He submits that his prayer is for allowing this revision in part and the jail sentence imposed upon applicants be restricted to the period already undergone by them. 8. Learned State counsel submits that from the allegation and the judgment passed by learned Trial Court as also Appellate Court, it is appearing that 4 / 5 applicants caused hindrance in discharging official duty of forest officials, abused them in filthy language, assaulted them and therefore trial court has found charges under Sections 147, 148, 294/149, 294/149, 186/149, 332/149, 353/149, 324/149 of IPC for causing grievous hurt and assault to public servant. He however submits that looking to the nature of allegation and the offence committed by applicants, sentence awarded by the courts below does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of criminal case. 10. From perusal of documents exhibited by the prosecution during trial would show that the F.I.R. was registered on 13.06.2004 for alleged commission of offence under Section 147, 148, 294, 506B, 332, 353, 186 of IPC against applicants and they were arrested on 28.07.2004. Criminal case registered against them was concluded/ decided on 05.12.2016 after about 12 years from the date of its registration. Thus, applicants have been compelled to face the rigours of criminal proceedings since 2004 and have endured the agony of a pending criminal case for over two decades. 11. Submission of learned counsel for applicants that no other criminal case is registered against applicant except this, is not disputed and opposed by learned State counsel. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicants were on bail during trial as also during appeal, however, they were arrested after passing of judgment and appellate court and thereafter they were released on bail pursuant to order passed on suspension of sentence by this Court on 02.06.2017. 12. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for applicants on reducing the sentence already undergone by them, Perusal of the record would show that the allegation against the applicants is that, while they were transporting forest wood on a tractor, they were intercepted by the officials of the Forest Department. At that time, the applicants allegedly became 5 / 5 aggressive, abused the officials in filthy language, obstructed them in the discharge of their official duties, and further deterred them by assault and use of criminal force from performing their lawful functions. 13. Dr. J.N. Shukla is examined as P.W.3, from his evidence it is not reflecting that any of the forest officials who are B.P. Tiwari (PW1), Ganesh Ram Verma (PW2), Vinod Singh (P.W.-8), Ramesh Prasad Patle (P.W.-11) and Pranesh Pandey (P.W.12) had received any grievous injuries over their person. 14. Considering entirety of the facts of the case, nature of allegation and further that applicants are villagers and they are having no other criminal record registered against them as stated by the counsel for the respective parties, their age on the date of incident as mentioned in trial court judgment as 50 years, 30 years, 25 years, 22 years respectively, they are facing rigours of criminal proceedings since over two decades and therefore it appears to this Court that the ends of justice would be met if the jail sentence awarded to applicants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Accordingly, the jail sentence awarded to applicants is modify to the period already undergone by them while enhancing fine amount imposed upon them from ₹ 100 to ₹ 500 for each of the offences. 15. In the result, this revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the applicants under Sections 147, 148, 294/149, 186/149, 332/149, 353/149, 324/149 of IPC, they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them enhancing the sentence of fine as ordered above. It is reported that the applicants are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds will stand discharged subject to payment of enhanced fine amount. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE