1 2025:CGHC:22878 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 409 of 2014 1. Nandu S/o. Kiruram Aged About 60 Years R/o. Vill. Rijhana Bahara, P.S. Premnagar, Civil and Rev. District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Ishwar S/o. Mangal Sai Dhanuhar Aged About 35 Years R/o. Vill. Rijhana Bahara, P.S. Premnagar, Civil and Rev. District Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Premnagar, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10/06/2025 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Pandey learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant No. 1, namely, Nandu has died during the pendency of this revision. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.11 17:58:26 +0530 2 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State admits the said fact and she also submits that the applicant No. 1, namely, Nandu, has also died during the pendency of this revision. 4. Accordingly, the petition so far as it relates to applicant No.1, namely, Nandu is concerned the same is dismissed as infructuous. 5. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 6/2014 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District - Surajpur (C.G.), arising out of the judgment and conviction dated 12.02.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur (C.G.) passed in Criminal Case No. 969/2008 wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo 04 months of rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional simple imprisonment for three months. 6. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant PW/1 Pahalwan was grazing the cattle’s at village Kantatoli and about 6 P.M the accused/appellants came on sport and committed marpit to the complainant by the help of lathi and he received two simple injuries. Thereafter he lodged the report before the Police Station Premnagar and on the basis of report, the Police lodged the report and registered the alleged offence against the applicants and arrested to the accused/applicants and after completing the investigation the Police filed the charge-sheet before the CJM Surajpur (C.G.). After committal of the case the learned Trial Court framed the charges under Section 325 of the IPC against the applicants and the applicants denied the aforesaid charge. 3 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the material on record and thus, the applicant has been convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo 04 months of rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional simple imprisonment for three months itself is bad in law. Learned counsel emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant No. 2 has already undergone 40 days of jail sentence. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. 8. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/ State, would strongly support the impugned judgment and submit that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of the trial Court and records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 10. 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 No. 2 under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo 04 months of rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional simple imprisonment for three months. I am of the view that the trial Court and the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in affirming the conviction of the applicant No.2 for offence under Section 325 of the IPC. 11. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant No.2 is facing criminal trial since 2014 and thereafter more than 10 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant No. 2, namely, Ishwar at present and further considering that the applicant No.2 has already 4 undergone 40 days of jail sentence and there would be no useful purpose to again send the applicant No. 2 in jail as he has already suffered 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 RI for 4 months under Section 325 of the IPC to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 40 days of jail sentence, however, the fine amount imposed upon the applicant No. 2, namely, Ishwar is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs.2,000/- under Section 325 of the IPC. Total enhanced fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- shall be deposited by the applicant No.2 in addition to the fine amount already deposited by him, within a period of 01 month from today before the trial Court concerned, failing which he shall undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District - Surajpur (C.G.). Ordered accordingly. 12. The amount of fine so deposited by the applicant No. 2, namely, Iswar before the concerned trial Court shall, in turn, be transmitted by the trial Court to the Government Special School For Intellectually Retarded Girls, District – Surguja (C.G.). 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision so far as it relates to applicant No.2, namely, Iswar is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 14. 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 Preeti