1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 601 of 2016 1. Kirtan S/o Mojha Sanwara, (wrongly mentioned as Mohan & Labho Sanwara in both the impugned judgment), aged about 46 years, 2. Trilochan S/o Labho Sanwara, aged about 64 years, 3. Moharsai S/o Pardesi Sidar, aged about 50 years, All are R/o Village - Bandora, P.S. and Tahsil - Malkharouda Civil and Revenue District - Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicants Versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate, For State/Respondent : Mr. Deepak Singh, Panel Lawyer, Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 20.01.2025 Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.06.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.98/2015 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District – Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, whereby the applicants have been convicted for the offence as mentioned under: PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.01.21 14:17:49 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 325 read with 34 of the IPC R.I. for one year and fine amount of Rs.300/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 3 months to each applicants. U/s 323 read with 34 (3 times) of the IPC Fine amount of Rs.300/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 2 months to each applicants. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, namely, Manohar (PW-06) resident of village Bandora, lodged a report before the police station Malkharouda, stating that on 01.08.2008, the present applicants along with other co-accused persons entered in the house of the complainant and abused his brother Vijay (PW-01) and committed marpit with him with hand and stick. When Punibai (PW-02), Bullu and Shambhu (PW-03) tried to intervene, then they were also assaulted by the accused persons, due to which they suffered injuries over their body. On the above background, the matter was reported. Thereafter, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti. The applicants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicants under Section 325/34 and 323/34 (3 times) of the IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants 3 in criminal appeal, wherein, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 21.06.2016 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he did not want to challenge the conviction of the applicants, but challenging the sentence part only, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the incident is of year 2008, applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are facing the lis since August, 2008, i.e. for more than 16 years. He further submits that applicants have remained in jail from 21.06.2016 to 01.07.2016 i.e. for 11 days and they may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. He further submits that fine amount has already been deposited by the applicants. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 (6) SCC 231. 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 the complainant, namely, Manohar (PW- 06), injured Vijay (PW-01), Punibai (PW-02), Sambhu (PW-03) and further considering the material documents available on record, I am of the view that the Appellate Court was justified in convicting the applicants as such. 9. As regards jail sentence of the applicants, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Manjappa (supra), 4 considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering that applicants have remained in jail from 21.06.2016 to 01.07.2016 i.e. for 11 days, they are facing the lis since August, 2008 i.e. for more than 16 years, they have no criminal antecedents against them and further, at present, applicant No.1 is aged about 62 years, applicant No.2 is aged about 80 years and applicant No.3 is aged about 64 years, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicants by the Appellate Court, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine sentence imposed upon the applicants is affirmed. 10.Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicants under the aforesaid Section is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their 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