NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 145 of 2016 1. Ishwar Singh S/o Khojaram Kashyap, aged about 29 years 2. Ramshankar S/o Shantilal Bind, aged about 45 years Both R/o Village Jhapeli, P.S. Baloda, District: Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh , ... Applicants Versus State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate Janjgir, District: Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Smita Jha, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 27.01.2025 Heard. 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure arising out of the judgment dated 23.01.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir, District: Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2014 whereby, the appeal of the applicant filed against the judgment dated SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.01.31 16:36:35 +0530 11.09.2014 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara in Criminal Case No. 384 of 2013 convicting and sentencing him as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 323/34 of IPC Fine amount of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, SI for one month each Under Section 325/34 of IPC RI for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine additional SI for one month each 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.10.2010, at about 08:00 pm, when the complainant Devnarayan, his wife Lalita and brother in law namely Ramlal were at their home in Jhapeli, at that time, the present applicants came to them and started abusing and assaulting them with the help of club, on account of which Ramlal sustained fracture over his hand and others persons were injured. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC were registered against the applicants. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections were filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara, District: Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). The applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in the Para No. 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 23.01.2016, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicants and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant No. 1 has remained in jail for 28 days i.e. from 23.01.2016 to 19.02.2016 and applicant No. 2 has remained in jail for 34 days i.e. from 29.10.2015 to 03.11.2015 and 23.01.2016 to 19.02.2016 and they are facing the lis since October 2010, i.e. for more than 14 years, there is no criminal antecedents against them and the fine amount has already been deposited by them. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 6 SCC 231. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 8. Considering the statements of PW-4 Ramlal, supported by PW-1 Lalita, PW-2 Devnarayan, PW-5 Rajkumar coupled with medical evidence of PW-3 Dr. S.S. Tomar and other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding. 9. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjappa (Supra) and particularly considering that the applicants have undergone about 28 days, they are facing the lis since 2010 and there is no criminal antecedent against them, I am of the view that the 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. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicants under the aforementioned sections is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The fine sentence is affirmed. 11. Since the applicant are reported to be on bail, therefore, their 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. 12. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh