1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No.607 of 2016 • Rambilas Nag, S/o Lalman Nag, aged about 35 years, R/o Karrekot, Police Station Maardum, Civil and Rev. District Baster, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant Versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Aantagarh, District North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 28.01.2025 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.06.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.07/2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, District – North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh, whereby the applicant has been convicted for the offence as under: Conviction Sentence U/s 323 of the IPC R.I. for one month and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 15 days U/s 324 of the IPC R.I. for four months and fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one month. 2 Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.12.2009 at 06:30 PM the complainant, Santosh Kumar (PW-01) received a phone call from a lady from the mobile of his sister who told him to come near Kundu Shop and when he reached at the shop, he saw two persons had caught hold her sister Ku. Alka (PW-02), due to which a quarrel took place and the applicant assaulted the complainant with tester (screw driver) and further assaulted his sister Ku. Alka with fists and leg and cut the left hand of his mother Smt. Saraswati with teeth, as a result of which, the complainant, her sister and mother received injuries on their body. On the above background, the complainant lodged the FIR (Ex.P-1) before the police station Antagarh against the applicant and the offence was registered against him. Thereafter, the injured persons were medically examined. During course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur. The applicant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the applicant of the charges under Section 294 and 506-II of the IPC, however, convicted him under Section 323 and 324 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, wherein, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 25.06.2016, affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant and 3 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he did not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant, but challenging the sentence part only, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the incident is of year December, 2009 i.e. he is facing the lis for about fifteen years. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for ten days (from 25.06.2016 to 04.07.2016), further he has no criminal antecedents against him, and therefore, the applicant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. He further submits that the fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant. 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. 8. Considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses, i.e. complainant Santosh Kumar (PW-01), Ku. Alka (PW-02), Smt. Saraswati Devi (PW- 03), Ku. Ekta Garg (PW-04), coupled with the evidence of Dr. V.K. Ramteke (PW-10) and investigating officer, R.S. Sahu (PW-08), Sub- Inspector and further considering the material documents available on record, I am of the view that the appellate Court was justified in convicting the applicant as such. Thus, I hereby affirmed the conviction of the applicant. 9. As regards the jail sentence of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the 4 applicant is facing the lis since Deceber, 2009, i.e. for about fifteen years, he has remained in jail for a period of 10 days and, further considering that there is no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant by the appellate Court, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Further, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant shall run concurrently and the fine sentence is hereby affirmed. 10.Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his 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