1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 765 of 2016 • Rampher Yadav, S/o Ramdhari, aged about 51 Years, R/o Village Durti, Police Station Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 11/07/2025 1. The present applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 12.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No.21/2016, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, while affirming the judgment dated 08.06.2016 passed in Criminal Case No.637/2011 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pratappur, District Surajpur, C.G., convicting the applicant under Sections 323 and 325 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 323/34 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.300/- for the offence under AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.07.11 17:28:58 +0530 2 Section 325/34 of IPC. In default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month for each offence. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.10.2006 at about 4:30 pm, applicant along with other co-accused persons assaulted the complainant/victim-Bahadur Singh (PW-1), who was working as a watchman at the Nursery of the Forest Department and Pawansai (PW- 2). The incident arose following the entry of cattle into the nursery premises. Upon a report being lodged to the above effect, aforesaid offences have been registered against the applicant and other co- accused persons. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pratappur, Surajpur, C.G. The accused persons abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the present applicant as mentioned in Para 1 of this order. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 12.07.2016 dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this revision on conviction part of the applicant, but confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail from 12.05.2015 to 03.09.2015 & from 12.07.2016 to 19.08.2016 i.e. for 4 months & 25 days, he has not been previously convicted, he is facing the lis since November, 2006, i.e. more than 18 years and at 3 present, age of the applicant would be approximately 60 years. He also submits that the fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant with the concerned trial Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the applicant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the revision and supports the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the statements of complainant/PW-1 Bahadur, PW-2 Pawansai, PW-3 Sarju Ram Rajwade, PW-4 Ajit Mishra, Head Constable and PW-11 Dr. K.D. Painkra and the other evidence and material 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 a correct finding and I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicant. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, further considering the fact that the applicant has undergone 4 months & 25 days, he is facing the lis since November, 2006 i.e. more than 18 years and at present, age of the applicant would be approximately 60 years, 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. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid Sections, the sentence imposed thereunder by the Court of JMFC as well as the Appellate Court 4 is hereby modified and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed and both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 11. It is reported that the applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh