1 2025:CGHC:2319 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 166 of 2014 Chandan Kumar Yadav S/o . Kamal Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o. Railway Colony, Bangla Yard, Near Sanskritin Niketan, Bilaspur, P.S. Tarbahar, Civil And Rev. Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, P.S. Tarbahar, Rev. And Civil Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Krishna Kumar Khatri, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14/01/2025 1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.09.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.237/2013, affirming the judgment dated 12.08.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.346/2012, whereby the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.15 18:46:36 +0530 2 learned JMFC, Bilaspur has convicted the applicant for offence under Section 354 and 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs.200/- and RI for six months and fine of Rs.500/-, respectively, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.07.2012 at 3.30 pm, when the complainant was coming out of the public toilate situated near residential place at Bangla Yard Jhoparapara, just infront of the house of applicant, the applicant caught hold of right hand of the victim and on making alarm, her sister-in-law and Brother-in-law Raju reached there and on being seen them as alleged the applicant brought a wooden Patia of a Cot and assaulted over the head of brother-in-law of victim and also over the right leg and also assaulted sister-in-law, namely, Rani over her chick and near the eyes he also slapped over the right hand of the victim. 3. The applicant as alleged had also abused and threatened the victim, thereafter a report was lodged at P.S. Tarbahar by the victim which Ex.P.1 and during the course of investigation, Patia which was alleged to have been used for assaulting was also seized and after the investigation of the case, the doctors and police filed charge- sheet before the Judicial Magistrate and the learned trial court on being found the charge-sheet, filed by the P.S. Tarbahar framed the charge under Section 354, 294, 506 and 323 of IPC and after the charges were framed and having being denied by the applicant, the concerned Magistrate directed the prosecution to examine the witnesses but after the examination the witnesses ultimately the trial 3 magistrate acquitted the applicant from the charges under Section 294, 506-B and convicted under Section 354, 323 of IPC. 4. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, the applicant had preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court, which was also dismissed, the learned appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant as awarded by the learned trial Court. Hence, this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the judgment of the trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the applicant and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. Both the trial Court as well as appellate Court have failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the complainant. Alternatively, he submits that the trial Court has awarded the sentence of RI for one year and fine of Rs.200/- under Section 354 of IPC and RI for six months and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 of IPC to the applicant. Considering the age of the applicant as applicant at present is aged about 29 years and as he has faced criminal trial since 2012, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant has already undergone 13 days of jail sentence as the appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.346/2012 and bail was granted to him by this Court only on 12.05.2014. 4 Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State, submits that both the trial Court and the appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant for offence under Sections 354 and 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.200/- and RI for six months with fine of Rs.500/-, respectively. In appeal preferred by the applicant, the appellate Court has maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicant. 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 and sentencing the applicant and affirming the conviction of the applicant for offence under Sections 354 and 323 of the IPC. 9. Now considering the question of sentence. As the criminal trial commenced on 13.08.2012 which continued till 12.08.2013 and though the appeal also continued for about 1 month and this revision petition was pending since 05.03.2014 and as such from the date of 5 commencement of trial, more than 10 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone 13 days of jail sentence as the appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.346/2012 and bail was granted to him by this Court only on 12.05.2014, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant again 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 appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for one year under Section 354 of the IPC and RI for six months under Section 323 of IPC to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 13 days of jail sentence, however fine amount is enhanced from Rs.200/- to Rs.3,200/- under Section 354 of IPC and from Rs.500/- to Rs.1500/- under Section 323 of IPC. Enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the applicant within a period of one month from today before the concerned trial Court and the same shall be paid to Government School for Visual and Hearing Impaired, Bilaspur (C.G.). Fine, if any, deposited by the applicant earlier shall be adjusted. If the enhanced fine amount is not deposited by the applicant within the stipulated time, he shall further undergo as has been ordered by the trial Court. Ordered accordingly. 10. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 6 11. 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 Akhil