1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 736 of 2016 • Hamesh Yadav, S/o Arjun Das, aged about 30 Years, R/o Village Madhaipur, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. P.K. Patel and Mr. D. Kushwaha, Advocates. For State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 24/01/2025 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge of Special Court for Trial of CBI cases) Raipur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No. 122/2016, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.03.2015 at about 6:00 pm, PW-2 Jaganlal Saytode, Sarpanch was distributing PDS rice AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.01.27 17:20:28 +0530 2 at village Madaipur Society where complainant- Gopal Yadav also reached and told PW-2 Jaganlal Saytode to distribute the rice by 7:00 pm as society would be closed on next day due to holi festival, at that time, present applicant, under the influence of liquor, came there, started abusing the complainant filthily and committed marpeet with him, due to which, complainant- Gopal Yadav sustained injuries and his right hand wrist got fractured. On report being lodged to the above effect, offence under the aforesaid Section has been registered against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 294 & 325 of IPC were filed before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non- guilty. 4. The Court of ACJM, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the present applicant for the offence under Section 294 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in Para 1 of this order. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 30.07.2016 dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this revision on conviction of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 16 days i.e. from 09.06.2016 to 10.06.2016 (2 days) and from 30.07.2016 to 12.08.2016 (14 days), he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since May, 2015, i.e. for more than 09 years. He also submits that the fine amount has 3 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. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 6 SCC 231. 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 Gopal Yadav, injured; PW-2 Jaganlal Saytode; PW-3 Virendra Kumar coupled with the statement of PW-5 Dr. S.R. Baghel, who found fracture in the right hand wrist of complainant and proved the MLC report vide Ex.P-4 and X-ray report (Article A-1) 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. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Manjappa (Supra) and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone 16 days, he is facing the lis since May, 2015 i.e. for more than 9 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. 4 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the applicant under Section 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