1 2025:CGHC:757 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 203 of 2014 Lokesh Patel @ Mintu S/o .Late Ramsajivan Patel Aged About 22 Years R/o. Near Guru Gasidas Mandir, P.S. Tarbahar, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Distt. Magistrate Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : None. For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06/01/2025 1. None appears nor any representation made on behalf of the applicant to press this revision petition when the case is called out, but taking into account that the matter is old one, the Court proceeds to consider and decide the matter with the assistance of State counsel. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.07 11:32:57 +0530 2 2. Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the non- applicant/State, is present. 3. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 06.03.2014 passed by the 3rd Addition Sessions Judge to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.307/2013, affirming the judgment dated 20.09.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 352/2013, whereby the applicant was convicted under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for 1 year and fine of Rs. 300/- under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 1 month and directed to run both the sentenced concurrently. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that The complainant, Ku. Purdima Kurre, lodged a report at the Tarbahar Police Station, stating that on 16.10.2011, at around 8:00 pm, she was on her way to Betel shop when the accused approached her, touched her inappropriately, and abused her. She shouted, and the accused committed mar-pit, causing her to receive an injury on her head. She then ran away from the spot. The police registered an offense against the applicant and investigated the matter. After completing the investigation, they filed a challan before the JMFC, Bilaspur. The trial court recorded the evidence led by the prosecution and concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the charges under sections 354 and 323 of the IPC. However, the applicant was 3 acquitted of the rest of the offenses. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant has preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court, the learned appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant by affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. Hence, the revision petition. 5. Learned State counsel submits that both the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court, after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant for offence under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for 1 year with fine of Rs.300/- under Section 354 of IPC and SI for 6 months with fine of Rs.200/- under Section 323 of IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 1 month. In an appeal preferred by the applicant, the appellate Court has affirmed the aforementioned conviction and sentence. 8. Considering the concurrent findings given by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, I am of the view that the appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in affirming the sentence of the applicant for offence under Sections 354 and 323 of the IPC. 4 9. Now considering the question of sentence. As the applicant has faced criminal trial since 2011 till 2013 and thereafter more than 10 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering the fact that the term of maximum sentence awarded to the applicant is 1 year and the applicant has already suffered about 40 days of jail sentence and has already deposited the fine amount imposed upon him, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant again in jail as he has already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from SI for 1 year under Section 354 of IPC and SI for 6 months under Section 323 of IPC to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. about 40 days of jail sentence. Ordered accordingly. 10. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 11. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil