1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 206 of 2016 • Mana Singh, S/o Khelan Singh, aged about 42 Years, R/o Village Sodhar, Police Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, the Station House Officer, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 05/02/2025 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.02.2016 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No. 51/2014, whereby the applicant has been convicted & sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') Fine of Rs.500/- Under Section 325 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.02.05 15:31:19 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.08.2017, complainant/PW-1 Bhagwat Singh lodged an FIR (Ex.P-6) alleging therein that due to trivial issue, his wife-Sonbai left the house and was going to her maternal home. Thereafter, he followed her on his bicycle and found that she was talking with the applicant, then he went there and tried to stop the applicant to talk with his wife, due to which, quarrel took place between them and in that event, present applicant started abusing the complainant-Bhagwat filthily and committed marpeet with him by hands and fists, as a result of which, complainant-Bhagwat sustained grievous injury over his head. On report being lodged to the above effect, offence under the aforesaid Sections have been registered against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 294, 341, 506 Part-II & 325 of IPC were filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty. 4. The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the present applicant for the offence under Section 341, 294, 506 Part-II and 325 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 of IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 294 of IPC; rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 506-Part II of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 325 of IPC. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide 3 judgment dated 29.02.2016, acquitted the present applicant for the offence under Sections 294 & 506 Part II of IPC, but convicted and sentenced him 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 the 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 has remained in jail for 5 days i.e. from 29.02.2016 to 04.03.2016, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since August, 2007, i.e. for more than 17 years. He also submits that the fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant with the concerned trial Court. Therefore, 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 statements of PW-1 Bhagwat Singh, injured; PW-2 Topsingh; PW-4 S.L. Singh Dhruva coupled with the statements of PW-3 Dr. Amit Lal, who proved the MLC report (Ex.P-4) & PW-5 Anil Pratap Singh Anil, who proved the X-ray report (Ex.P-9) and the other evidence 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. 4 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone 05 days, he is facing the lis since August, 2007 i.e. for more than 17 years 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. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the applicant under Sections 341 & 325 of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by 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 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) Judge Akhilesh