1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 679 of 2016 1 - Chandrika Yadav, S/o Late Birjhu Yadav, Aged About 35 Years, 2 - Nandkishor Yadav S/o Late Birjhu Yadav, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village - Kurkuria, Chokypandrapath, Thana and Tahsil - Bagicha, Civil and Revenue Distt. - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bagicha Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondent : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan along with Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 17/09/2025 Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment dated 02.07.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Jashpur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.21/2016 arising out of judgment dated 10.03.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha, District – Jashpur in Criminal Case No.498/2013 convicting the applicants/accused persons under Sections 325/34 and 324/34 of PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.09.18 17:56:07 +0530 2 Indian Penal Code (in short the ‘IPC’) and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 325/34 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 324/34 of IPC, and in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3-3 months (on each count) with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently. The learned Appellate affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused persons, however, reduced the default sentence from rigorous imprisonment of 3-3 months to 1-1 month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.08.2013 at about 12:30 PM, when Ramashankar Yadav (PW-02) was working on the agricultural land, at that time Chandrika Yadav and Nandkishore Yadav (applicant No.1 & 2 herein respectively) came there and due to land dispute, altercation took place between them and the applicants abused Ramashankar in filthy language and assaulted him with the aid of axe and iron stick, due to which victim Ramashankar sustained simple and grievous injuries on his body. On the basis of the above background, the brother of the victim, namely, Ghanshyam (PW-01) lodged the FIR (Ex.P-1) against the accused persons. The victim Ramashankar was medically examined by Dr. C.D. Bankhla (PW-06) and Dr. A. Toppo (PW-07). Further, the victim has received one grievous injury on metacarpal bone of his right hand. During investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate Fist Class, Bagicha, District - Jashpur, (C.G.). The 3 applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. The learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence acquitted the applicants under Sections 294 and 506-B of IPC and convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in paragraph 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in criminal appeal, wherein the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 02.07.2016 maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicants, however, the default sentence of R.I. 3-3 months has been reduced to 1-1 month (on each count). Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that she does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicants and confines her argument on the sentence part only, which according to her, is on higher side. She further submits that the applicants have remained in jail for 21 days i.e. from 02.07.2016 to 22.07.2016, they have no criminal antecedents, they are facing the lis since August, 2013, i.e. for more than 12 years, and at present, the applicant No.1 & 2 are aged about 48 years and 60 years respectively. She further submits that the victim has not suffered any grievous injury. This apart, the fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned Trial Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 6 SCC 231 in support of her argument. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the statements of the injured witness namely, Ramashankar Yadav (PW-02), Ghanshyam Yadav (PW-01), Muneshwar Rajwade (PW-04) coupled with statements of Dr. C.D. Bankhla (PW-06), Dr. A. Toppo (PW-07) 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. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicants. 9. As regards the sentence of the applicants, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Manjappa (supra), and also considering the fact that the applicants have undergone jail sentence for 21 days, they are facing the lis since August, 2013 i.e. for more than 12 years, and also considering the age of the applicants and there are no criminal antecedents 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 i.e. 21 days. Further, both the above sentences imposed on applicants are directed to run concurrently. 10.Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicants under the aforementioned Sections are affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The fine sentence is affirmed. 5 11. Since the applicants 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 481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Samhita, 2023. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash