1 2025:CGHC:34981 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 625 of 2016 Sonu Yadav S/o Leeladhar Yadav Aged About 53 Years Now 59 Years Occupation - Agriculturist, R/o Village Saraitola, Badhaipara, Police Station Bagbahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Palash Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 22/07/2025 Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.06.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.13/2010 by the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri District Jashpur (CG) whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment dated 20.10.2010 passed in Criminal Case No.71/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paththalgaon, Dist. Jashpur (CG) convicting and sentencing the applicant as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 323/34 IPC To pay fine amount of Rs.500/- Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.07.24 10:26:54 +0530 2 Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005 (for short, ‘Adhiniyam 2005’) and Section 5 of the Adhiniyam. 2005 R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.200/- and in default, further RI for one month. R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.300/- and indefault, further RI for one month. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.03.2009 at 5:00 pm the complainant - Daleshwar Mahakul went to village Saraitola to meet his father-in-law – Sonu Yadav, applicant herein, and as soon as he touched the feet of the applicant to pay respect, the applicant started assaulting him by hands and fists by saying that his daughter fell ill on account of his exorcism and thereafter he abused and threatened the complainant to life and on hearing his shouts, another co-accused person Bhuneshwar Mahakul came and assaulted him by hands and fists after forcibly dragging him to the inside house and thereafter, he was also assaulted by other accused persons – Tapeshwar @ Trilochan Yadav, Arjun Yadav, Duryodhan and Gautam Yadav by hands and fists. The incident was reported by the complainant himself on 22.03.2009 in Police Station Baghbahar and based on report F.I.R. has been registered against them and that the complainant has been sent for medical examination. During investigation, statements of witnesses have been recorded. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paththalgaon. The applicants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. Learned Court of J.M.F.C. Paththalgaon, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded the finding of conviction and sentence as mentioned in para 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 3 28.06.2016 dismissed the appeal of the applicant while upholding conviction and sentence of the trial Court, as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant does not challenge the revision on conviction of the applicant but is challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to her, is on higher side. He further submits that the incident is of 2009 and at present the applicant is aged about 67 years, he has no criminal antecedents and that, he is facing the lis since 2009. The applicant remained in jail from 28.06.2016 to 11.07.2016 and thus he has incarcerated the jail sentence for 14 days and he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. He further submits that the fine amount has already been deposited in the concerned Court. 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 statement of the complainant/victim – Daleshwar Yadav (P.W.2), which was supported by the statement of P.W.3 Visheshwar, P.W.5 Rukdev and medical evidence of P.W.1 C.K.Sai and further considering the other evidence and material documents available on record, I am of the view that both the Trial Court as well as appellate Court were justified in convicting the applicant as such. 9. As regards jail sentence of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the applicant and the complainant are near relatives and that, the applicant remained in jail for a period of 14 days and he is facing the lis since 2009, i.e., for more than 15 years and there are no criminal antecedents against him and also considering the fact that the applicant is aged about 67 years, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding 4 the conviction of the applicant recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the jail sentences undergone by him shall run concurrently. The fine sentence shall remain in tact. 10. Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid sections 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 remain 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 Anjani