2025:CGHC:10623 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 624 of 2016 Ritesh Baigane S/o Sadashiv Baigane, aged about 38 years R/o Junihatri, Police Station: Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, District: Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station: Kotwali, District: Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Smita Jha, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 04.03.2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 01.07.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, District: Rajnandgaon, SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.03.05 17:32:20 +0530 Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2016 whereby, the appeal filed by the applicant was partly allowed while confirming the conviction of the applicant under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC and while reducing the sentence to RI for 3 months (for Section 338 of IPC). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.07.2013, at about 05:30 pm in the evening, the applicant by driving his car bearing registration No. CG07 MA 1888, rashly and negligently, dashed the complainants, Saroj Netam and Babulal, as a result of which, Saroj Netam sustained injuries on her ribs and Babulal also sustained injuries over his body. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under the aforesaid sections were registered against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections were filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, District: Rajnandgaon (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned Trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced till rising of the Court with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to pay fine amount, SI for 7 days under Section 337 of IPC and to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for one month under Section 338 of IPC. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide order dated 01.07.2016 partly allowed the appeal while upholding the conviction and altered the sentence part as mentioned in Para 1. 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 the applicant has remained in jail for 11 days i.e. from 01.07.2016 to 11.07.2016, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since July 2013, i.e. for more than 11 years and the fine amount has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the 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 injured eye witness Saroj Netam (PW- 1), Babulal (PW-3), coupled with the medical evidence of Dr. B.L. Kumhare (PW-7) in the form of MLC Report vide Ex.P/10 and other evidence 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 correct finding. 9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the applicant has remained in jail for 11 days, he is facing the lis since July 2013 and there is no criminal antecedent 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 is 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. 12. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh