1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 949 of 2016 Prabhash Ray, S/o Hajari Ray, Aged About 42 Years, Occupation - Agriculture R/o Village Radhakrisn Nagar, Police Station - Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Richa Patel appears on behalf of Shri A.K.Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent/Non- applicant : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 28/03/2025 Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.09.2016 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, Dist. Surguja C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.12/2016 whereby the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal in part while reducing the sentence of the applicant to six months RI in place of two years RI imposed under Section 325/34 IPC as passed by the Court of J.M.F.C. Balrampur vide its judgment dated 04.03.2016 in Criminal Case No.157/2013 while keeping in tact the fine amount of Rs.500/- and default sentence. Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.04.01 17:00:53 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.06.2013, the applicant and his wife abused the complainant – Smt. Basanti Sikdar (P.W.1) filthily over tilling of land, threatened her to life and then assaulted her with hands, fists and club. On report being lodged to the above effect by her (P.W.1), offence under Sections 294, 323, 325, 34 IPC under Crime No.78/2013 has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused person by the P.S. Balrampur. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balrampur against the applicant and his wife, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, while acquitting the applicant and his wife under Sections 294 & 506 Part-II of IPC, convicted them under Section 325/34 IPC and sentenced them to RI for two years and fine of Rs.500/- each with default sentence. In appeal, the by the Appellate Court modified the sentence vide its judgment dated 28.09.2016 to the effect that the present applicant was sentenced to RI for six months whereas wife of the applicant was sentenced till rising of the Court. Hence, this Revision by the present applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute arose between the applicant and the complainant over tilling of land, which is trivial in nature. She further submits that the trial Court sentenced the accused persons to RI for two years whereas the appellate Court has reduced the same to six months RI with respect to the applicant and for the same offence, the appellate Court sentenced the applicant’s wife till rising of the Court. She also submits she does not want to press this revision on conviction part of the applicant but confines her argument 3 to the sentence part only, which according to her, is on higher side. She further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 10 days i.e. from 28.09.2016 to 07.10.2016, he has no criminal antecedents and that, he is facing the lis since June, 2013. She also submits that fine amount has been deposited. On these premises, she urged that the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 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 statement of complainant PW-1 Basanti Sikdar supported by the evidence of P.W.4 Nirmala Sikdar and medical evidence of P.W.6 Dr. Sharad Kumar Gupta and the other evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction 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. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone 10 days, he is facing the lis since June, 2013 i.e. for more than 11 years, there are no criminal antecedents against him and that fine has already been deposited, I am of the view that 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. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining 4 conviction of the applicant under Section 325/34 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 Anjani