1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 653 of 2016 1 - Chaiban Sidar S/o Chitar Sidar Aged About 50 Years 2 - Kriparam S/o Chitar Singh Sidar Aged About 36 Years 3 - Ramlal Sidar S/o Roop Singh Sidar Aged About 30 Years 4 - Dilip Sidar S/o Bodhram Sidar Aged About 30 Years All R/o Village Gaurbahari, Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh Chhattisgarh … Non-applicant For Applicants : Shri Ashish Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Shri R.N.Pusty, Government Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 11/03/2025 Heard. 1. This revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.07.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.20200000085/2015, whereby the learned appellate Court has allowed the appeal of the applicants in part and affirmed the conviction of the applicants under Section 435/34 IPC while altering their sentence to 3 months RI from 6 months RI while keeping in tact the fine amount of Rs.200/- and default sentence of SI for one month each. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Lochan Sidar (P.W.2) lodged a report at Police Station Tamnar on 20.03.2011 stating Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.03.12 10:35:44 +0530 2 therein that the applicants, in pursuance of their common intention, set his barn (Kotha) on fire and caused mischief by fire worth Rs.2,000/-. On the basis of report, F.I.R. was lodged vide Ex.P.2 for offence punishable under Section 435/34 IPC under Crime No.67/2011. During investigation, vide Ex.P.3 map was prepared and the applicants were taken into custody. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda. The applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. The learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicants under Section 435/34 and sentenced them to under RI for 6 months and fine of Rs.200/- and in default thereof, SI for one month each. The learned appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 02.07.2016 allowed the appeal in part and reduced the sentence as shown in para 1 of its order. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicants but confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the applicants remained in jail for 14 days, i.e., from 02.07.2016 to 15.07.2016, there are no criminal antecedents against them and they are facing the lis since March, 2011, i.e. for more than 14 years. He also submits that fine amount imposed upon them has been deposited before the trial Court, therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 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. 3 8. Considering the statement of P.W.2 Lochan Sidar, the complainant, supported by the evidence of P.W.3 Subhashini Sidar and the other evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction 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 applicants. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the applicants have undergone 14 days jail sentence, they are facing the lis since March, 2011 i.e. for more than 14 years, there are no criminal antecedents against them and that fine amount has already been deposited, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, sentence of fine amount and default thereof imposed by both the learned Courts shall remain in tact. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the applicants under Section 435/34 of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is hereby modified and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 11. It is reported that the applicants are on bail. Their bail bonds are not 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) Anjani JUDGE