1 2025:CGHC:9735 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1098 of 200 7 • Santosh Sahu S/o Binau Sahu aged about 42 years, R/o Bhaisbod, P.S. Kunda, District – Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station – Kunda, District – Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : None. For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 25 / 02 /202 5 1 Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 14.01.2025, the appellant is present in person before this Court. His presence be marked. 2 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 08/2007 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.02.25 17:19:16 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 323 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 2 months. 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.09.2006, between 3:00 to 4:00 pm, when complainant Samaru (PW- 4) was cutting gross in his field, the present appellant came on the spot and assaulted him on his head by means of stick, due to which he sustained grievous injuries. On the complaint of the complainant, FIR was registered against the appellant and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 4 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 21 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. 5 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2007, learned Judge has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. However, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para-2 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 6 The appellant is present in person before this Court and prays that he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2006, and thereby more than 18 years have rolled by since then. At present, he is aged about 60 years and he has already remained in jail for about 170 days, and no useful purpose would be served in 3 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. 7 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Radhelal (PW-1), Ramkumar (PW-2), Ramchand (PW-3), Samaru (PW-4), Ramnarayan Dubey (PW-8), Dr. M.P. Mahishwar (PW-11), K.R. Sahu (PW-12) and Dr. P.L. Kurre (PW-14), 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 323 of IPC. 10 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2006 about 18 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellant has no criminal antecedent, at present he is aged about 60 years and has already remained in jail for about 170 days, this court believes that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back the appellant to jail. Hence, appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. 4 However, the fine imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. 12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13 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. 14 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