2025:CGHC:40275 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 717 of 2012 Kaptan Singh @ Pappu S/o Chattar Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Parkodi, Post And P.S. Saja, District: Durg Now Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus 1. State of C.G. through - P.S. Saja, District: Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2. Anil Deshwal S/o Dharampal Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Noukesha , P.S. Chowki And Post - Devkar , P.S. Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3. Sandeep S/o Dharampal Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Noukesha , P.S. Chowki And Post - Devkar, P.S. Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Savitri Q W/o Dharampal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Noukesha , P.S. Chowki And Post - Devkar , P.S. Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Adarsh Rajput, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S. Baghel, Advocate For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 11.08 .2025 SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.08.13 13:16:22 +0530 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant/complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded vide judgment dated 27.07.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.), whereby accused/respondents No. 2 to 4 were convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing simple injuries to the applicant/complainant and his wife Suman Singh (P.W.1 & P.W.2) and each of them were sentenced till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- & Rs.500/- on each count was imposed with a default sentence of Simple Imprisonment for one month each. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.11.2009, at about 9:00 p.m., the complainant-applicant, namely Kaptan Singh @ Pappu, was sitting in his shop, then the accused persons entered the shop and started abusing him and thereafter physically assaulted him. Thereupon, the complainant’s wife intervened, but the accused/respondents No. 2 to 4 also assaulted her and caused injuries to her. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, offences under Sections 294, 323, and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code were registered against accused/respondents No. 2 to 4. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid section was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja, District: Durg (C.G.). The respondent No. 2 to 4 abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced Respondents No. 2 to 4 under Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further, under Section 323/34 IPC, they were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, and in default of payment of the fine, to undergo further two months’ simple imprisonment. The said judgment was challenged by Respondents No. 2 to 4 by way of criminal appeal. The Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 27.07.2012, partly allowed the appeal and modified the sentence as detailed in Paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the present applicant-complainant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-complainant submits that the punishment prescribed under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is imprisonment for a term which may extend up to one year, either simple or rigorous, and/or a fine which may extend up to Rs. 1,000/-. However, the learned trial Court has sentenced respondent No. 2 to 4 imprisonment till the rising of the Court, which is manifestly inadequate and improper, therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the sentence awarded requires enhancement to a more appropriate term to meet the ends of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment passed by the Appellate Court and the said judgment is just and proper and calls for no interference by this Court. 7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits that the dispute between the parties arose out of a business transaction involving the sale and purchase of iron rods and cement, wherein certain dues were outstanding. He further submits that there was no intention on the part of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to cause any injury to the applicant-complainant and the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have been embroiled in this litigation since 2009, that is, for more than fifteen years, and they have no prior criminal record. The learned Appellate Court, after considering all relevant aspects, has imposed an appropriate punishment, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, there is no scope for enhancement of the jail sentence in the present case. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 9. PW-1 Kaptan Singh @ Pappu, who is the complainant in this case, has deposed that on the date of the incident, i.e., 05.11.2009, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 came to his shop and inquired about the business transactions. When he informed them that the accounts would be settled after some time, they started abusing him and assaulting him with the help of a harvester belt and also with hands and fists, causing injuries to his body. Thereafter, when his wife intervened, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 also assaulted her and causing injuries to her as well. However, during cross- examination, PW-1 admitted that he had purchased 560 sacks of cement and returned only 115 sacks, with an outstanding amount of Rs. 10,000/- which is still due to respondent Nos. 2 to 4. He further acknowledged that the respondents had demanded the said amount, and he had requested them to calculate all transactions and take away the balance amount accordingly. 10. PW-2 Suman Singh, wife of PW-1 Kaptan Singh @ Pappu, has corroborated the testimony of her husband and has categorically deposed that on the date of the incident, i.e., 05.11.2009, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 assaulted both her and her husband with the help of a harvester belt. In her cross-examination, she admitted that her husband, Kaptan Singh @ Pappu, had to return certain dues related to a cement transaction to respondent Nos. 2 to 4. She further stated that her husband had informed the respondents that the due amount would be paid after final settlement of accounts. 11. Upon perusal of the aforesaid statements, it is evident that the dispute between the parties arose on account of certain outstanding dues and during the course of the altercation that ensued between them, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 assaulted the applicant/complainant Kaptan Singh @ Pappu and his wife, Smt. Suman (PW-2). The learned Appellate Court, after due appreciation of the evidence available on record and taking into consideration the fact that both parties were engaged in the business of sale and purchase of cement, iron road etc, and that the altercation arose out of a monetary dispute, has imposed a sentence till the rising of the Court. Furthermore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, to the effect that the Appellate Court has erroneously imposed the said sentence, deserves no force in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and furthermore, no minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is just, proper, and does not warrant any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh