1 / 3 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 686 of 2016 Raja Manhare S/o Jagannath Manhare, aged about 23 years R/o Mudpar, P.S. and Tahsil: Palari, District: Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate, Balodabazar, District: Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 24.07.2025 1. This present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 19.07.2016 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2015 arising out of the Judgment dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balodabazar (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 414 of 2013 whereby, the appeal filed by the applicant was partly allowed by the learned Appellate Court while confirming the conviction of the applicant SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.07.24 17:10:37 +0530 2 / 3 under Section 325 IPC and reducing the sentence from RI for 1 year to RI for 3 months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.12.2011 at about 09:00 pm, the present applicant assaulted the complainant Sukhdani by stick, as a result of which, the complainant got injured in the thumb of his left hand. Thereafter, the complainant PW-1 Sukhdani Dhritlahre reported the matter to the Police Station: Palari, District : Raipur (C.G.) pursuant to which, FIR (Ex.P/1) was registered against the applicant. Injured/victim was sent to medical examination where PW-6 Dr. F.R. Nirala, examined the victim and found injuries over his body and gave his MLC report vide Ex. P/4 and x-ray report vide Ex.P/5. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balodabazar, District: Balodabazar (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicant under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced him RI for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 19.07.2016, partly allowed the appeal and altered the sentence part as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 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 during trial the applicant has remained in jail for 7 days i.e. from 19.07.2016 to 25.07.2016, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since 2011. He further submits that the fine amount has already been deposited, therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the 3 / 3 period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State 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 statements of complainant PW-1 Sukhdani Dhritlahre, supported by the statement of PW-2 Biswaram, coupled with the evidence of PW-6 Dr. F.R. Nirala 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 correct finding. 9. Further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone about 7 days, he is facing the lis since 2011 i.e. for more than 13 years 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. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned sections are affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed. 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 Saurabh