1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 715 of 2016 Harishankar Mehar S/o Late Purandar Mehar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Barpali, Tah. and P.S. Barpali, Distt. Bargarh, Civil and Revenue Distt. Bargarh, Odisha, ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh, Civil and Revenue Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 07/07/2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 26.07.2016 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.202000000962015 whereby the judgment dated 24.11.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.609/2012 convicting the applicant under Section 498-A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.07.08 17:06:36 +0530 2 undergo R.I. for 3 months, has been partly allowed by the Appellate Court by reducing the rigorous imprisonment of 1 year to 6 months and enhancing the fine amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, marriage between the applicant and complainant – Priti Dewangan, was solemnized on 25.01.2004. After three months of their marriage, the applicant and other family members started demanding gold ornaments and one lakh rupees from the complainant and as such, they started torturing and quarreling with the complainant. It is further alleged that on 23.11.2005 and 24.11.2005, the applicant went to the house of the complainant at Raigarh and demanded gold ornaments and cash of rupees one lakh and when they did not fulfill the said demands, the applicant did not take the complainant with him and left her in her parental house. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a written complaint on dated 04.12.2005 before Police Station Chakardhar Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.) against the applicant and her other six in-laws and subsequently, FIR was registered against them for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Thereafter, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant along with six other persons, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 3 3. Learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant/husband and father-in-law of the complainant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment, however, acquitted the other five persons from the alleged charge. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant and co-accused person in Criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 26.07.2016, partly allowed the appeal and convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of appeal, co-accused Purnendra Mehar, who is the father-in-law of the complainant/victim, had died. Hence, this revision has been preferred by the applicant herein. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail from date of judgment of appellate Court i.e. 26.07.2016 till the date of granting of bail from this Court i.e. 02.08.2016 (total 8 days). He further submits that the applicant has not misused the liberty granted to him, he has no criminal antecedent, he is facing the lis since July, 2006 i.e. for more than 19 years. He further submits that fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned Court. This apart, the complainant has filed a petition before the Family Court, Raigarh 4 for divorce in which divorce has already been granted on 11.01.2017. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment passed by the learned JMFC and Appellate Court which requires no interference by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and perused the record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of complainant Priti Dewangan (PW-01), Sahodra Dewangan (PW-02), who is the mother of the complainant, Pitamber (PW-04) and Churamani (PW-05) who are the brothers of the complainant, supported with the other evidence available 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 correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant. 8. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that applicant has remained in jail for about 8 days, he has no criminal antecedent, further, he has not misused the liberty granted to him by this Court, he is facing the lis since July, 2006, i.e. for more than 19 years, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicant back to jail again, 5 and ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Further, the fine amount as imposed by the learned Appellate Court shall remain intact. 9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is hereby affirmed. 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 Prakash