1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 771 of 2012 Motiram S/o Shri Katwari Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Palama O.P. Bhatgaon Ps And Tah. - Pratappur Distt. - Surajpur C.G., ... Petitioner/accused versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Ps In-Charge Ps Pratappur Distt. - Surajpur C.G. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Anjiv Kumar Singh appears on behalf of Shri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 07/04/2025 Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, Dist. Surajpur C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.114/2012 whereby the appeal of the applicant has been dismissed while affirming the judgment dated 16.07.2012 passed in Criminal Case No.439/2011 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pratappur convicting the applicant under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 6 months. Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.04.08 10:54:41 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant/injured - Ramsai lodged a report at police outpost Bhatgaon on 31.01.2003 stating therein that due to land dispute, applicant – Motiram, who is younger brother of the complainant, assaulted him with axe on his right leg, resulting in, he received injury. On report being lodged to the above effect, offence under the aforesaid Section 326 IPC has been registered against the applicant. The injured/complainant was medically examined by Dr. Maheshwar Singh (P.W.10) and vide Ex.P.3, axe was seized from the possession of the applicant/accused on 01.02.2003 and he was arrested on the same date. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non- guilty. 4. The Court of JMFC and appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in Para 1 of this order. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge this revision on conviction part of the applicant but confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant and the complainant are brothers in relation and the incident happened because of land dispute between them, in which, in a spur of moment and without any premeditation, the applicant assaulted the complainant. He further submits that complainant/injured – Ramsai has died after 5 years from the date of incident, therefore, he was not examined. He further contends that the applicant was in jail from 02.02.2003 to 07.05.2003 3 during trial and thereafter, he was again in jail from 17.10.2012 to 19.01.2013 and thus, he remained in jail for a period of 6 months and 4 days and that he has no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis since 2003, i.e. for more than 22 years. He also submits that now the applicant is aged about 60 years and that fine amount has already been deposited, therefore, it is urged by him that the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 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 perused the record. 8. Considering the statement of PW-2 Muneshwar Ram Soni, P.W.6 Sukhal, P.W.7 Smt. Parvati, wife of the complainant/injured – Ramsai and medical evidence of P.W.10 Dr. Maheshwar Singh as well as 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 fact that the complainant/injured and the applicant are real brothers and the dispute arose between them is out of land dispute and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone six months and 4 days, he is facing the lis since 2003 i.e. for more than 22 years, there is no criminal antecedents against him and looking to the fact that now the applicant is now old 4 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. While maintaining conviction of the applicant under Section 326 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 shall not be 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