1 2025:CGHC:3463 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 923 of 2015 1. Santosh Kurre S/o Laxman Satnami Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Basti Baradwar, P.S. Baradwar, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2. Urmila Bai W/o Santosh Kurre Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Basti Baradwar, P.S. Baradwar, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Janjgir Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant s For Applicants : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Non-applicant /State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Gy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.01.2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, in criminal appeal No. 99/2015, arising out of the judgment and order dated 25.04.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti, in criminal case No. 44/2010, whereby the applicants were convicted under Section 294 of the 2 IPC and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs. 1000-1000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo 15-15 days of rigorous imprisonment, in Section 323/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for 04-04 months with fine amount of Rs. 1000-1000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 01-01 month, in Section 04 of the Tonahi Pratadna Act and sentenced them to undergo RI for 01-01 years with fine of Rs. 1000-1000/- in default of fine further RI for 03- 03 months and in section 5 of the Tonahi Pratdna Act and sentenced them to undergo RI for 01-01 year with fine of Rs. 1000- 1000/- in default of fine of Rs. Further RI for 03-03 months each of the applicants.( all the sentences shall run concurrently) 2. According to the prosecution's case, complainant Kaushilya Bai lodged a report at Baradwar Police Station, alleging that on January 13, 2010, at 5:00 pm, the applicants entered her kitchen garden. They allegedly abused her using filthy language and accused her of practicing witchcraft on the applicant's wife. They also threatened to kill her and committed physical assault, resulting in injuries to the complainant. Based on the complainant's report, the police registered an offense against the applicants and, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against them. 3. After completing the trial, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order on 25.04.2015, convicting the applicants under Section Section 294 of the IPC and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs. 1000-1000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo 15-15 days of rigorous imprisonment, in Section 323/34 of the IPC and 3 sentenced them to undergo RI for 04-04 months with fine amount of Rs. 1000-1000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 01-01 month, in Section 04 of the Tonahi Pratadna Act and sentenced them to undergo RI for 01-01 years with fine of Rs. 1000-1000/- in default of fine further RI for 03-03 months and in section 5 of the Tonahi Pratdna Act and sentenced them to undergo RI for 01-01 year with fine of Rs. 1000-1000/- in default of fine of Rs. Further RI for 03-03 months each of the applicants.( all the sentences shall run concurrently). 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment dated 25.04.2015, the revisionists preferred an appeal before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide order dated 14.10.2015 in criminal appeal No. 99/15. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants/revisionists does not challenge their conviction, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount, as the applicants have already undergone near about 27 days of jail sentence each. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaydev Shrichand Danani v. State of Gujarat reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 616. 4 6. Per contra, learned State counsel, appearing for the non- applicant/State would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of both the Courts and records with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the materials available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicants for offences punishable under Section 294 of the IPC and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs. 1000-1000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo 15-15 days of rigorous imprisonment, in Section 323/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for 04-04 months with fine amount of Rs. 1000-1000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 01-01 month, in Section 04 of the Tonahi Pratadna Act and sentenced them to undergo RI for 01-01 years with fine of Rs. 1000- 1000/- in default of fine further RI for 03-03 months and in section 5 of the Tonahi Pratdna Act and sentenced them to undergo RI for 01-01 year with fine of Rs. 1000-1000/- in default of fine of Rs. Further RI for 03-03 months each of the applicants.( all the sentences shall run concurrently). In an appeal preferred by the applicants/revisionists before the appellate Court, whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide order dated 14.10.2015 in criminal appeal No. 99/15. Considering the materials available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the learned appellate Court has not committed 5 any illegality or infirmity by afÏrming the order passed by the learned trial Court. 9. Now considering the question of sentence as the criminal trial commenced on 28.01.2010 which continued till 25.04.2015, and though the appeal also continued for near about 06 months and this revision petition has been pending since 26.10.2015 and as such from the date of commencement of trial, more than 14 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicants at present and further considering that the applicants have already undergone near about 27 days of jail sentence each and also considering the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants/revisionists i.e. Jaydev Shrichand Danani (supra), there would be no useful purpose to again send the applicants in jail as they have already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 04 – 04 months in under Section 323/34 of the IPC, RI for 01- 01 years in under Section 04 of the Tonahi Pratadna Act and RI for 01-01 year in Under Section 05 of the Tonahi Pratadna Act, to the period already undergone by the applicants i.e. near about 27 days of jail sentence, however fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 1000 - 1000/- to 2000 - 2000/- (each applicants for each sentences), in addition to what they have earlier been deposited before the concerned trial Court. Enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the applicant within a period of one month from today before the concerned trial Court, failing which they shall undergo the sentence as has been 6 ordered by the trial Court and afÏrmed by the learned appellate Court, Sakti (C.G.). Ordered accordingly. 10. The amount of fine so deposited by the applicants before the concerned trial Court shall, in turn, be transmitted by the trial Court to the Government Multi-Disabled Home, Village Pendri, District Janjgir - Champa, (C.G.) 11. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.22 17:20:38 +0530