1 / 4 2025:CGHC:45912 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 33 of 2017 • Bahoranlal S/o Nakchhed, Aged About 76 Years Caste Sahu, R/o Village Nagarda Thana And Tahsil Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus • The State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sakti, District Jangir Champa Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 09/09/2025 1. Applicant is present before this Court along with his counsel. His appearance is taken on record. 2. Applicant has filed this revision challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 30.12.2016, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 162/2006, by which learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District – Janjgir-Champa has maintained the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2006, passed in Criminal Case No.1237/2001, by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti, District – Janjgir-Champa convicting and sentenced the applicant in following manner: CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 392 & 392/34 of IPC R.I. for 6 months for each crime and fine of ₹ 100; in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 7 days PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 4 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.05.2001 at about 10:00 p.m., Subharandas was taken by the applicant Bahoranlal on his motorcycle to Raja Dhaba, Sakti, on the pretext of obtaining a Hanuman coin. At the dhaba, other accused persons, namely Vijay, Pardeshi, and Shivkumar, were already present. They questioned Subharandas about money. When he stated that he had not brought the money, accused Vijay forcibly took the keys of Subharandas’s motorcycle, threatened him, compelled him to sign several documents, and demanded ₹ 16,000 to retrieve the keys of his vehicle. Subsequently, Subharandas, accompanied by Jawahar, Krishna, and Sadhusharan, arranged and handed over ₹ 16,000 to accused Vijay. However, despite receiving money, the accused persons did not return the motorcycle. Thereafter, Subharandas submitted a written report of the incident at Police Station Sakti. Upon completion of investigation, a charge- sheet was filed against the appellant and other accused before court of competent jurisdiction. 4. Applicant was charged with Section 392, 392/34 of IPC. So as to hold the applicant guilty, prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses namely Subharandas (PW1), Sadhusaran (PW2), Krishna (PW3), Narmada Prasad (PW4), Mohan Vaishnav (PW5) and Gopi (PW6) and exhibited 6 documents. Statement of applicant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined by the applicant in defence. 5. The Trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence which has come on record, vide impugned judgment dated 05.08.2006, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment, which has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 30.12.2016 leading to the filing of this criminal revision. 3 / 4 6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that he is not pressing this revision on conviction part of the applicant, but confines his argument to the sentence part only. He submits that on the date of filing this revision age of applicant was about 75 years and as of now he is about 84 years of age. Pursuant to the bailable warrant issued by this Court, applicant is present before this Court and however looking to the age related problems he has been brought on a wheel chair. He submits that during trial applicant was in jail from 14.06.2001 to 08.09.2001 and thereafter after passing of impugned judgment by the appellate court on 30.12.2016 he was sent to jail and the application for suspension of sentence was allowed on 11.01.2017. Applicant has already served jail sentence of about three months, whereas the jail sentence awarded to applicant is of six months for commission of offence as mentioned above. He submits that looking to the age of applicant, this revision may be allowed in part and the jail sentence imposed upon applicant be restricted to the period already undergone by him. Applicant has already deposited fine amount imposed upon him. 7. Learned State counsel submits that if this court finds it appropriate to reduce sentence already undergone in the facts of the case, looking to the age of applicant and the period of jail sentenced awarded to him, he is having no objection. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of criminal case. 9. Submission made by learned counsel for applicant is to reduce the sentence awarded to applicant by the trial court as also by the appellate court to the period already undergone. Date of incident is 13.05.2001, on the said date applicant was about 60 years. He faced rigours of criminal case/ trial for about 24 years and as on date applicant is about 84 years. 10. Pursuant to the bailable warrant issued by this Court, applicant appeared and he was brought by the relatives on a wheel chair. As submitted by 4 / 4 learned counsel for applicant and not opposed by the State counsel with regard to period of sentence already undergone by applicant is of about 03 months. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant was on bail during trial as also during appeal, however, he was arrested after passing of judgment and appellate court and thereafter he was released on bail pursuant to order passed on suspension of sentence by this Court on 11.01.2017. 11. Considering entirety of the facts of the case, nature of allegation and further that age of applicant on the date of incident was about 60 years, he is facing rigours of criminal proceedings since over two decades and therefore it appears to this Court that the ends of justice would be met if the jail sentence awarded to applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the jail sentence awarded to applicant is modify to the period already undergone by him while maintaining conviction of applicant of offence under Section 392, 392/34 of IPC. Fine amount of ₹ 100 imposed upon him is maintained. 12. In the result, this revision is partly allowed. It is reported that the applicant is on bail, therefore, his bail bond will stand discharged. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE