1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 687 of 2016 1. Kalicharan Yadav S/o Faju Yadav, Aged About 50 Years, 2. Dhananjay Yadav S/o Kalicharan, Aged About 23 Years, Both are R/o Village Kurkuria, Choky - Pandrapath, Thana and Tahsil Bagicha, Civil and Rev. Distt. Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicants Versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Vivekanand Samaddar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 21.01.2025 Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.13/2016 by the Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Jashpur, (C.G.), whereby the applicants have been convicted for the offence as mentioned under: Conviction Sentence U/s 353 of the IPC R.I. for six months and fine amount of Rs.500/- each and in PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.01.22 18:06:40 +0530 2 default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 3 months to each applicants. U/s 332/34 of the IPC R.I. for six months and fine amount of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 3 months to each applicants. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.05.2014 at about 03:10 PM, the complainant Tabrej Ansari (PW-01) along with Sanjay Yadav (PW-02), went to the forest for round, at that time he received secret information that applicant No.1, namely, Kalilcharan Yadav, was cutting Saal wood and keeping the same at his home. When they reached to the home of applicant No.1, they found 6 piece timber upon the wall and when the watchman Sanjay Yadav was putting hammer mark on that timbers then the applicants committed mar-peet with Sanjay Yadav and when the complainant tried to intervene, then the applicants abused him in filthy language and also assaulted him. On the basis of the above background, the complainant lodged the report against the applicants. Thereafter, statements of the witnesses were recorded. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the JMFC, Bagicha, District Jashpur. The applicants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence acquitted the applicants of the charges under Section 294 and 506-Part -II of the IPC, however, convicted them under Sections 353/34 (two times) and 332/34 (two times) of the IPC and sentenced 3 them R.I. for 1-1 year and fine of Rs.500-500/- each under both the offences, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional R.I. for 3-3 months each. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in criminal appeal, wherein, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 18.07.2016 partly allowed the appeal by affirming the conviction of the applicants and sentencing them as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he did not want to challenge the conviction of the applicants, but challenging the sentence part only, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that during the trial the applicants have remained in jail for six days and after the judgment of the appellate Court, they have remained in jail for 9 days from 18.07.2016 to 26.07.2016 i.e. for total 15 days. He further submits that there is no previous criminal antecedents against the applicants. Further, the incident occurred on 10.05.2014 and they are facing the lis since year 2014 i.e. for more than 10 years. Thus, it is prayed that the applicants may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. He further submits that fine amount has already been deposited by the applicants. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision while supporting the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 8. Considering the evidence of the complainant, namely, Tabrej Ansari (PW-01), Sanjay (PW-02), coupled with the medical evidence submitted by R.N. Dubey, Medical Officer (PW-03) and further 4 considering the material documents available on record, I am of the view that the Appellate Court was justified in convicting the applicants as such. 9. As regards jail sentence of the applicants, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering that applicants have remained in jail for 15 days, they have no criminal antecedents against them, further, the date of incident is 10.05.2014, they are facing the lis since 2014 i.e. for more than 10 years, and at present, applicant No.1 is aged about 60 years, applicant No.2 is aged about 33 years, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicants by the Appellate Court, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants shall run concurrently and the fine sentence imposed upon the applicants is affirmed. 10.Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicants under the aforesaid Sections is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash