1 2025:CGHC:761 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 6 of 2015 Rajendra Nishad S/o Mansharam Nishad Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No 5 Police Station Khamhariya Tahsil Saja Dsitrict Durg Now District Bemetara Cg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh S/o Through The District Magistrate, Bemetara, Police Station Khamhariya, District Durg Now District Bemetara C.G., Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Amit Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2025 1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 03.01.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 44/2011, whereby the learned appellate Court has modified the order passed by the learned trial Court, the learned appellate Court has altered the conviction and sentence of applicant under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- to Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months with fine of 2 Rs.500/-, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja, District Bemetara in Criminal Case No. 94/2010. 2. The prosecution's case is that on September 3, 2006, at around 9:00 pm, complainant Durga Sinha was returning home with his friend Ramsingh after closing his fruit shop near Santosh Medical Store in Khamhariya. At that time, the applicant was standing in front of the medical store in a drunken state. Upon seeing the complainant, the applicant began abusing him, leading to a heated argument. Both parties eventually returned to their respective homes. The next day, September 4, 2006, at around 10:45 am, the applicant approached Santosh Medical Store and allegedly assaulted the complainant with an angle rod, causing injuries. The complainant reported the incident to the police station, and an FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 294, 506-B, and 324 of the IPC. 3. After completion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted the applicant vide order dated 20.07.2011 in Criminal Case No. 94/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for 02 months. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 20.07.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja, District Durg in Criminal Case No. 94/2010 preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara, whereby the learned appellate Court modified the sentence awarded by the learned trial 3 Court and acquitted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC, whereas, the appellate Court Convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 03 months with fine as has been awarded by the learned trial Court. 5. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not want to challenge his conviction, however, he submits that as the applicant has already undergone about 14 days of jail sentence, therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non- applicant/State submits that both the Courts have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the revisionist as mentioned in the opening paragraph. In an appeal preferred by the applicant, the appellate Court has modified the conviction and sentence of the applicant. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not committed any illegality of infirmity in convicting and sentencing 4 the applicant and modifying the conviction and sentence of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC. 9. Now considering the question of sentence. As the applicant has faced criminal trial since 06.10.2006 to 20.07.2011 and this revision petition has been pending since 2015 and as such from the date of commencement of trial, more than 15 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering the fact that the term of maximum sentence awarded to the applicant for offence under Section 325 of IPC is 3 months and the applicant has already suffered jail sentence and has already deposited the fine amount imposed upon him, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant again in jail as he has already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from R.I. for 3 months under Section 325 of IPC to the period already undergone by the applicant. Ordered accordingly. 10. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 11. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan