1 2025:CGHC:12666 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1164 of 2015 Surymadi Tiwari S/o Radha Krishna Tiwari Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Forest Colony, Mahuwapara, P.S. Rajpur, Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Rajpur, Distt. Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. Rev. Distt. Balrampur And Civil Distt. Ambikapur Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate. For Non-applicant /State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.03.2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, in Cr.A. No. R- 49/2015, arising out of the judgment and order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpur, in Cr. Case No. 513/2013, whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.03.18 10:46:08 +0530 2 undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 10 days. 2. The prosecution's case is that complainant Dinesh Kumar Chouhan (PW-1), a Forest Guard, lodged a report at Rajpur police station stating that on 26.02.2012, at approximately 3:00 a.m., they apprehended two accused persons, Dheeraj Jaiswal and Arasad Anis, and took them to the forest ofÏce. While the complainant was on his mobile phone, accused Dheeraj Jaiswal allegedly pushed him and attempted to flee the scene on a motorcycle, also taking the complainant's mobile phone. The sole allegation against the applicant is that he assisted accused Dheeraj Jaiswal in escaping from the location. 3. The prosecution's story, in brief, is that on March 30, 2008, Complainant Jasinta visited Gajmohan Uraon's house in village Manpur, where several people were present. At 9:00 pm, the applicants forcibly took Jasinta towards an agricultural field. Mukesh and Konchai fled, while Mahabeer took Jasinta to a distant place, intending to outrage her modesty. When she raised an alarm, no one responded due to the loud drumbeats and the fact that the people were intoxicated. Sukhdev witnessed the incident. Jasinta managed to escape from Mahabeer's clutches and narrated the incident to her sister Lalita. Jasinta lodged a report at the Dhamtari police station, leading to a police investigation. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the applicant in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. 3 4. After completing the trial, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order on 28.01.2015, convicting the applicant under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 10 days. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment dated 28.01.2015, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide order dated 23.12.2015 in criminal appeal No. R-49/2015. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist does not challenge his conviction, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount, as the applicant has already undergone near about 07 days of jail sentence. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. She 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. 7. 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. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of both the Courts and records with utmost circumspection. 4 9. 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 applicant for offences punishable under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 10 days. In an appeal preferred by the applicant/revisionist before the appellate Court, whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide order dated 23.12.2015 in criminal appeal No. R- 49/2015. 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 any illegality or infirmity by afÏrming the order passed by the learned trial Court. 10. Now considering the question of sentence as the criminal trial commenced on 01.06.2012 which continued till 28.01.2015, and though the appeal also continued near about 1 month and this revision petition has been pending since 30.12.2015 and as such from the date of commencement of trial, more than 15 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone near about 07 days of jail sentence and also considering the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist i.e. Jaydev Shrichand Danani (supra), there would be no useful purpose to again send the applicant in jail as he has 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 5 appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 06 months under Section 225 of the IPC to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. near about 07 days of jail sentence, however fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2000/-, in addition to what he has 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 he shall undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the trial Court and afÏrmed by the learned appellate Court, Ramanujganj (C.G.). Ordered accordingly. 11. The amount of fine so deposited by the applicant before the concerned trial Court shall, in turn, be transmitted by the trial Court to the Government Special School for Intellectually Retarded Girls, Surguja (C.G.) 12. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13. 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