1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 361 of 2016 • Agrahij Rai, S/o Jagdev Rai Nishad, aged about 60 Years, R/o Vill - Kodiya P.S. - Utai Distt. - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through - District Magistrate Durg Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh the Police Station - Anda Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Akanksha Vishwakarma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Ratan Nidhi Pusty, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 05/02/2025 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2016 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.159/2013, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.700/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant- Shyamlal lodged a report at police station on 07.03.2010 at about 12:00 pm stating therein Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.02.05 16:07:22 +0530 2 that due to dispute in social meeting, applicant quarreled with him and out of anger, the applicant twisted his right hand index finger and caused grievous hurt to him. On report being lodged to the above effect, offence under the aforesaid Section has been registered against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 325 of IPC was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the 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 11.04.2016 dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that she does not want to press this revision on conviction part of the applicant but confines her argument to the sentence part only, which according to her, is on higher side. She further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 16 days i.e. from 11.04.2016 to 26.04.2016, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since March, 2010, i.e. for more than 14 years. She also submits that the applicant is now old aged person, therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 6 SCC 231. 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 3 perused the record. 8. Considering the statement of PW-1 Shyamlal/complainant coupled with the medical evidence of PW-5 Dr. P.N. Dewangan 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, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Manjappa (Supra) and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone 16 days, he is facing the lis since March, 2010 i.e. for more than 14 years, there is no criminal antecedents against him and looking to the applicant being old aged person, 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. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the applicant under Section 325 of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is hereby modified and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed. 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 Anjani