1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 521 of 2016 • Krishn Kumar Yadaw S/o Jodhan Yadaw, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Ramsama, Thana Narayanpur, District Jashpur, Civil and Revenue District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant Versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kansabel, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vivekanand Samaddar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Deepak Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 27.01.2025 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.06.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.25/2016 by the Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- in default to pay fine, to undergo further R.I. for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.08.2014, the complainant Stephen Kerketta (PW-01) had gone to the Kansabel for PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.01.27 17:26:26 +0530 2 withdrawing money from the A.T.M. and at about 11:00 AM when he was returning to his home, on the way the applicant met him and requested for lift then the complainant said that he can not ride the motor cycle so he had given it to the applicant and himself sit behind him. But on the way the applicant stopped the bike and told the complainant to push the bike and when the complainant started pushing the bike then the applicant ran over the motor cycle. Thereafter, complainant Stephen Kerketta (PW-01) lodged F.I.R. before the police station and then the police registered offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha. The applicant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicant under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced him R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- in default to pay fine, to undergo further R.I. for six months. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, wherein, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 08.06.2016, affirmed the conviction of the applicant and partly allowed the appeal, however, reduced the sentence as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he did not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant, but challenging the sentence part only, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the incident is of year 2014 i.e. facing the lis for 3 more than ten years. He further submits that during trial the applicant has remained in jail for 116 days and after the judgment of the appellate Court, he has remained in jail for 10 days (from 08.06.2016 to 17.06.2016) i.e. total 126 days, and therefore, the applicant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. He further submits that fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision while supporting the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 8. Considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses, i.e. complainant Stephen Kerketta (PW-01), Vikas Sahu (PW-03), Raghunath Sahu (PW-04), and further considering the material documents available on record, I am of the view that the appellate Court was justified in convicting the applicant as such. Thus, I hereby affirmed the conviction of the applicant. 9. As regards the jail sentence of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the applicant is facing the lis since 2014, i.e. for more than ten years, he has remained in jail for a period of 126 days and, further considering the young age of the applicant, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant by the appellate Court, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Further, the fine sentence is hereby affirmed. 4 10.Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash