1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 481 of 2016 • Yuvraj Singh Thakur, S/o Mahendra Singh Thakur, aged about 26 Years, R/o Housing Board Colony Jagdalpur, P.S. City Kotwali Revenue and Civil Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant Versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Bastar and the P.S. Kotwali, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 20.02.2025 1. This present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 09.05.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.03/2016, wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 394 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.07.2015 at about 09:00 PM, complainant- Bheem Kumar Sahu (PW-01) was waiting Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.02.20 16:47:01 +0530 2 for bus at the bus stop, at that time, present applicant along with other co-accused persons came there on a motorcycle and committed marpeet with him and looted two sets of mobile phone and cash of Rs.13,400/- from him. Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to the Police Station: Kotwali, District : Bastar (C.G.), pursuant to which, FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). The accused persons abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicant and other co-accused persons under Section 394/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant and other co- accused persons in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 09.05.2016, partly allowed the appeal while upholding the conviction of the applicants, reduced their sentence from five years R.I. to one year R.I. and enhanced the fine amount from Rs.1,000/- to 5,000/- each. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the present applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 10 months and 16 days i.e. from 07.07.2015 to 26.05.2016, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since July, 2015. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period 3 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 minutely. 8. Considering the statements of complainant-Bheem Kumar Sahu (PW-01), Dharma Pandey (PW-02), Gautam Sahu (PW-03), Anil Rao (PW-04) coupled with the medical evidence of Dr. Rishabh Sao (PW-09) and other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding and I hereby affirm the same. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the applicant has undergone jail sentence for a period of 10 months and 16 days, he is facing the lis since July, 2015 and there is no criminal antecedents 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. The fine sentence is affirmed. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4 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. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Akhilesh