1 / 5 2025:CGHC:5682 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1141 of 2024 1 - Bablu @ Manoj Baghel S/o Baliram Baghel Aged About 32 Years 2 - Padamnath Baghel S/o Baliram Baghel Aged About 30 Years Both are R/o Dhobiguda Taraipara, P.S. Kotwali Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Bastar Place Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 30/01/2025 1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 07/10/2024 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.26/2024, arising out of judgment dated 16/07/2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur, District Bastar in Criminal Case No.1052/2022, whereby the applicants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.02.20 10:58:56 +0530 2 / 5 Conviction Sentence Under section 325 of the IPC R.I. for 1 Year and to pay fine of Rs.50/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 day additional imprisonment. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 27.03.2022 at about 16:30 hrs., the applicant Devendra Yadav, S/o Lucky Prasad Yadav, caste Rawat, aged 35 years, resident - near Naya Munda Chopda Mill, police station Bodhghat, came to the police station and lodged a report that he had performed love marriage with Mrs. Baghel, who is the daughter of washerman Baliram and they both have 2 children i.e. a boy Bhadra and a girl Jhalak Yadav and since the year 2017 his wife is living in her maternal home and does not want to come to his house and he always used to go to see the children in 15-20 days and used to come back after meeting the children. On 27.03.2022 he had gone to meet his children, as soon as he entered the house and called the children, at that time Bablu Padam and Baliram came out of the house and said, why have you come, run away and abused him with filthy and obscene words, threatened to kill him and all three brothers kicked him and beat him with a solid object due to which he got injured in his hand and it was bleeding; later on, when the applicant filed a report, a crime was registered at Kotwali police station, and a case was registered as Crime No. 123/22 of Kotwali police station, Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 IPC and separately for the fracture of the hand Section 325 IPC was added, accused Padam Bablu Baliram Baghel was arrested and as the charge against the accused could not be committed, he was arrested and since the case was bailable, he 3 / 5 was released on bail bond after presenting a competent surety. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet number 163/22 dated 18.06.2022 was prepared, which was produced before the trial court after observation by the prosecuting officer. 3. The trial court prepared the details of the offences under Sections 294, 325/34, 506 IPC and read them out to the accused and explained to them. The accused denied the charges and demanded a trial. The accused have stated in their statement of charge that they are being falsely implicated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by declaring themselves innocent. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 16/07/2024 convicted the applicants under Section 325, 34 IPC. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment, the applicants have filed criminal appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment dated 07/10/2024 maintained the conviction, however, acquitted the applicants under Section 34 IPC. Hence, this criminal revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the judgment of the Courts below are bad in law as well as on facts. He would next contend that the independent witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. He would next contend that the seizure of club was not proved by the prosecution and the Sessions Court has wrongly held guilty to the applicants under Section 325 of IPC. Learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified 4 / 5 suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicants have already undergone one month and two days of jail sentence as the Sessions Judge, has maintained the conviction under Section 325 IPC and bail was granted to them by this Court only on 08/11/2024. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may suffice to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. 7. Learned State counsel submits that both the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicants, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned trial Court, after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted and sentenced the applicants as aforesaid. In appeal preferred by the applicants, the lower appellate Court has maintained the conviction under Section 325 IPC. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the accused persons for offence under Section 325 of the IPC. 10. Now considering the question of sentence. As the applicants are facing criminal trial since a long period, considering the fact that the applicants have already undergone 01 month & 02 days of jail sentence as the 5 / 5 Sessions Judge has maintained the conviction awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.1052/2022 and bail was granted to them by this Court only on 08/11/2024, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicants again in jail as they have already suffered jail 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 aforesaid sentence to the period already undergone by the applicants i.e. 01 month & 02 days of jail sentence, however, they are directed to make payment of Rs.1,000/- - 1000/- each towards fine. The said enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the applicants within a period of one month from today before the concerned trial Court. If the enhanced fine amount is not deposited by the applicants within the stipulated time, they shall further undergo the default jail sentence as has been ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur. Ordered accordingly. 11. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 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/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu