NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 574 of 2016 Mahendra Dhobi S/o Balsai about about 30 Years R/o Village - Davankara, Police Station - Chandaura, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station - Chandaura, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. R.N. Pusty, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 13.02 .2025 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 26.05.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2016 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, District: Surajpur (C.G.) whereby, the appeal of the applicant filed against the judgment dated 31.03.2016 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.02.13 17:00:10 +0530 Pratappur, District: Surajpur in Criminal Case No. 108 of 2013 wherein, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below: Conviction Sentence U/s 498-A of IPC RI for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for 3 months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of the complainant Smt. Jaypati Dhobi was solemnized with the applicant. It is alleged that after some days of her marriage, the present applicant and other family members started torturing her physically and mentally on account of demand of dowry, therefore, due to persistent ill-treatment, the complainant has lodged the report against the husband-applicant and her in laws. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under Sections 498-A and 506-B were registered against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid section was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pratappurr, District: Surajpur (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the applicant and other co-accused person under Section 506-B of IPC and convicted & sentenced them as mentioned in the Para No. 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant and other co-accused in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 26.05.2016, dismissed the appeal of applicant upholding the judgment of the Trial Court and allowed the appeal of other co-accused persons. Hence, this revision filed by the convicted applicant-accused. 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 44 days i.e. from 08.04.2013 to 18.04.2013 and 26.05.2016 to 27.06.2016, he is facing the lis since April 2013, i.e. for more than 11 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 minutely. 7. Considering the statements of PW-1 Smt. Jaypati Dhobi (complainant) supported by PW-2 Kamla (mother of the complainant), PW-3 Ramfal (father of the complainant), PW-4 Shivshankar (brother of the complainant) 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 44 days, he is facing the lis since April 2013 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