NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 757 of 2016 Mohd. Anwar Khan S/o Ismile Khan, aged about 33 years R/o Imambada Chowk House No. 57, Farid Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil and District: Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 29.01 .2025 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 04.08.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2016 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District: Durg (C.G.) whereby, the appeal of the applicant filed against the judgment dated SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.01.29 17:10:34 +0530 28.04.2016 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg in Criminal Case No. 49 of 2009 wherein, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below: Conviction Sentence U/s 498-A of IPC RI for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for 10 days. U/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act RI for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for 10 days. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of the complainant Suraiya Begam with the applicant was solemnized on 22.01.2006 according to Muslim Customs. It is alleged that after some days of her marriage, the present applicant and other family members started torturing her physically and mentally on account of demand of dowry of Rs. 70,000/-, therefore, due to persistent ill-treatment, the complainant has lodged the report against the husband-applicant and her in laws. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under the aforesaid sections were registered against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid section was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, District: Durg (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant and other co- accused persons as mentioned in the Para No. 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant and other co-accused in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 04.08.2016, partly allowed the appeal while acquitting the other co- accused persons and convicting and sentencing the applicant as mentioned above. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that some family dispute arose between the applicant and the complainant and the said dispute was settled between the parties in a case filed by the applicant for restitution of conjugal rights, before the Family Court. He further submits that the present applicant has remained in jail for 13 days i.e. from 04.08.2016 to 16.08.2016, he is facing the lis since January 2009, i.e. for more than 16 years, he has no criminal antecedents and the fine amount has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 7. Considering the statements of PW-2 Suraiya Begam (complainant) supported by PW-3 Jahaaala (mother of the complainant), PW-5 Majhar Khan (brother of the complainant), and other evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is a correct finding of fact and I hereby affirm the said finding. 8. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone about 13 days, he is facing the lis since January 2009 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. 9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed. However, both the sentences shall run concurrently. 10. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh