1 2025:CGHC:14627 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 598 of 2016 1. Jagdish Panjabi S/o Late Shri Fateh Chand Panjabi, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Jagdish Saw Mil, Marwahi Road Pendra, Thana Pendra, Tahsil Pendra and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Dashrath Panjabi S/o Late Shri Fateh Chand Panjabi, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Ekta Colony, Pendra, Thana - Pendra, Tahsil - Pendra And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Hitendra Panjabi S/o Late Shri Gopi Chand Panjabi, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Road Pendra, Thana Pendra, Tahsil Pendra And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Daulat Ram Panjabi S/o Late Shri Gopi Chand Panjabi, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Patgava, Pendra, Thana - Pendra, Tahsil Pendra And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Sunil @ Sonu Panjabi, S/o Daulat Ram Panjabi, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Patgava, Pendra, Thana - Pendra, Tahsil Pendra And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicants : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2, 3 & 4 : Mr. Siddharth Pandey and Ms. Komal Yadav, Advocates on behalf of Mr. Mahesh Pandey, Advocate PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.28 16:04:28 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, Order on Board 26/03/2025 1. The present revision is filed by the complainants/applicants under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 17.03.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.34/2015 whereby the appeal filed by the accused persons (respondent No.2 & 3 herein) is partly allowed while upholding their conviction under Section 427 and 448 of the IPC. The Appellate Court while upholding the conviction as such, set aside their jail sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10-10 months (for each offence) as passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Marwahi, Camp Court, Pendra Road, District – Bilaspur, in Criminal Case No.37/14 vide its judgment dated 24.07.2015, however, enhanced the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- each imposed under Section 427 of the IPC, to Rs.7,000/- each and maintained the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- each imposed under Section 448 of the IPC, while keeping intact the default sentence thereof. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.10.2012 at about 12:30 PM complainant Jagdish Punjabi (PW-01) lodged the FIR (Ex.P-1) against the accused persons (respondent No.2, 3 & 4 herein) in relation to unauthorized entry in the private premise of the complainant wherein the accused persons armed with clubs (lathi) abused him in filthy language and assaulted him and Dashrath Panjabi. It is also alleged that the accused persons destroyed the property of the complainant. On the basis of the above FIR, the accused persons were 3 arrested. 3. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against the accused persons/respondent No.2, 3 & 4 before the Court of JMFC, Pendra Road where the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. The Court of learned JMFC, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, while acquitting the accused persons/respondent No.2, 3 & 4 herein under Sections 294 & 506 Part-II IPC, convicted them under Section 427 and 448 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 10-10 months on each count with fine of Rs.5,000-5,000/- under Section 427 of the IPC and Rs.1,000-1,000/- under Section 448 of the IPC, and in default thereof, to further undergo 2 months and 1 month imprisonment respectively and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. As regards respondent No.4-Sunil @ Sonu Punjabi herein, the trial Court acquitted him by giving him benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 since he, at the time of incident, was a student, he had no knowledge about the seriousness of the crime, he has no criminal antecedents and he is the first offender. However, vide its judgment dated 17.03.2016, the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this order. Hence, this revision by the complainants. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainants/applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court setting aside the jail sentence awarded to the accused persons by the Trial Court, is contrary to law. She further submits that the learned Appellate 4 Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record in its correct perspective. This apart, there is sufficient evidence available on record to show the complicity of the accused persons in the crime in question. Though the accused persons were rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court, but Appellate Court erred in setting aside the jail sentence, which is not sustainable. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court may be set-aside and the jail sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court against the accused persons may be affirmed. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused persons (respondent No.2, 3 & 4) submits that the said respondents have not filed any revision against the impugned judgment. He further submits that complainants/applicants and the accused persons are family members and there was land dispute amongst them. The accused persons are facing the lis since October, 2012 i.e. for more than 12 years at present, and there are no criminal antecedents against them. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Court has rightly set-aside the jail sentence, thus, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the State supports the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court. She further submits that the accused persons have not preferred any revision against the appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 9. Indisputably, the respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 and the 5 applicants/complainants are members of the same family and there was land dispute amongst them. The learned Trial Court, after considering the evidence and material available on record, has held the accused persons/respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 guilty for the aforesaid offences and thus, sentenced them as above. However, the learned Appellate Court in paragraph 21 observed as under: “21. As far as the sentence awarded to the appellants/accused by the subordinate court under Sections 427, 448 IPC is concerned, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants under these sections by the learned trial court appears to be harsh. Regarding the sentence, there should be such a coordination between the nature of the crime and the sentence that the accused gets punishment for the crime committed and he is able to reinstate himself in the mainstream of society by desisting from committing crime in future. In this case, no material is available on record regarding the previous conviction of the appellants, hence it is clear that they are not habitual offenders. Apart from this, the appellants/accused are not habitual offenders. The accused have faced trial in the case in question for more than 3 years, due to which they must have suffered physical, mental and financial loss. Apart from this, the appellants and the applicant party are basically from the same family, between whom there is also a dispute regarding land. In the opinion of this court, if the appellants are punished with the punishment of imprisonment, then certainly the relationship between the two parties will become bitter and almost dead forever. In such a situation, it seems appropriate to punish the appellants only with fine instead of punishing them with imprisonment. This will also fulfill the objectives of justice and as such, set aside the sentence part awarded by the trial Court under the aforesaid Sections while enhancing the fine amount to Rs.7,000/- in place of Rs.5,000/- each awarded under Section 427 of IPC and keeping in tact the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- each awarded under Section 448 IPC. Further, the appellate Court directed that out of fine amount of Rs.16,000/-, a sum of Rs.10,000/- be paid to the complainants as 6 compensation.” 10. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding given by the Appellate Court, and further considering that the accused persons are facing the lis since October, 2012 i.e. for more than 12 years at present and they have no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Court regarding sentence part of the accused persons, is just and proper and there is no scope of any interference by this Court. 11. Consequently, the revision is dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash