1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 129 of 2016 • Dineshwar Singh S/o Umendiram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Bhediyanawagaon, Police Station Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus • The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vidyabhushan Soni, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, Judgment on Board 17/03/2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 01.02.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.0000088/2015 arising out of judgment dated 04.08.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District - Balod, (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 52/2014 wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment for one month. Vide impugned PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.18 14:33:40 +0530 2 judgment, the learned Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by affirming the conviction and fine imposed upon the applicant, however, reducing the sentence from rigorous imprisonment for two years to rigorous imprisonment for one year with default stipulations. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage between the complainant/wife (PW-01) and applicant/husband was solemnized in the year 1997 and out of their wedlock, two children were born. They have spent ten years of their matrimonial life happily but after ten years, the behaviour of the applicant changed as he was addicted to drinking alcohol and other bad habits. Allegations against the applicant is that on 27.12.2013, when complainant opposed her son not to roam in the night, then the applicant had beaten her. Thereafter, on 10.01.2014, the complainant (PW-01) lodged a report (Ex.P/6) against applicant in the police station Balod. 3. After investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and charge-sheet was filed against the applicant before the concerned Court. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned Trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment and vide judgment dated 01.02.2016, the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that applicant has remained in jail for 15 days i.e. from 3 01.02.2016 to 15.02.2016, he has no criminal antecedents, and he is facing the lis since, January, 2014, i.e. for more than 11 years. He further submits that fine amount has already been deposited. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of complainant (PW-01) and his son Homendra Kumar (PW-02) supported with the 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. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant. 9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the facts that applicant has remained in jail for 15 days, he has no criminal antecedents, he is facing the lis since, January, 2014, i.e. for more than 11 years, further the fine amount has already been deposited, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicant back to jail and the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him while keeping intact the fine 4 amount and default sentence thereof. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11. 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 Prakash