NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 951 of 2016 Raja @ Rajkumar Sarthi S/o Pardeshi Sarthi Aged About 28 Years R/o Karaihapara Shanichari Bazar Ratanpur, Police Station Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh --- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through The Police Station Ratanpur, District: Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) CRR No. 983 of 2016 1. Shiva Dhurve S/o Dular Singh Dhurve, Aged About 36 Years R/o Juna Shahar, P. S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2. Santosh Kumar Netam, S/o Melaram Gond, Aged About 24 Years R/o Juna Shahar, P. S. Ratanpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh , District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Applicants Versus State of Chhattisgarh through The Police Station: Ratanpur, District: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, P.L. SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.03.06 16:49:10 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 06.03.2025 1. Both these revisions are filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure arising out of the judgment dated 21.09.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Session Division, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal Nos. 143 of 2016 and 123 of 2016 whereby, the appeal of the applicants filed against the judgment dated 30.06.2016 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District: Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. J 554 of 2015 convicting and sentencing them as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 347 of IPC RI for one year with a fine amount of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, SI for one month Under Section 394/34 of IPC RI for 3 years with a fine amount of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, SI for 3 months Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.08.2015, at about 12:30 pm, when the complainant Dujram was offering prayer accompanied by Laxmi Bai at Goddess Lakhni Devi Temple, at that time, one of the applicant namely Shiva Dhurve slapped him and looted one mobile phone and Rs. 500/- from them. Thereafter, FIR was lodged by the complainant-Dujram which was registered under Crime No. 194 of 2015. Spot Map was prepared and after recording the memorandum statement of the applicants, seized articles were recovered from them. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District: Bilaspur (C.G.). The applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in the Para No. 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 21.09.2016, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, these revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants 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 the applicant- Raja @ Rajkumar Sarthi has remained in jail for 91 days i.e. from 23.08.2015 to 04.11.2015 & 21.09.2016 to 07.10.2016 whereas, the applicant- Shiva Dhurve and Santosh Kumar Netam have remained in jail for 14 months and 1 day i.e. from 23.08.2015 to 24.10.2016 and they are facing the lis since August 2015, i.e. for more than 9 years, they have no criminal antecedents and the fine amount has already been deposited by them. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 8. Considering the statements of complainants PW-1 Dujram Sahu, PW- 2 Laxmi Bai supported by the statements of PW-6 William Toppo (Investigating Officer) and 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. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the applicants were in jail and they are facing the lis since August 2015 i.e. for more than 9 years and there is no criminal antecedent against them, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicants under the aforementioned sections is affirmed and they are sentenced to 91 days, which they have already undergone. The fine sentence is affirmed. However, both the sentences shall run concurrently. 11. Since the applicant are reported to be on bail, therefore, their 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. 12. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh