1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 456 of 2011 1 – Ramchander, S/o Chaitu Ram Satnami, aged about 36 years, 2 – Ghasiya S/o Dwasram Satnami, aged about 40 years, Both are R/o Muchha Mulda, Police Station Sarsiva, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate, Raipur/Station House Officer Sarsiva, District – Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Shri Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 29/10/2025 Heard. 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 27.07.2011 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazaar (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.11/11 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal while affirming the judgment 24.03.2009 passed in Criminal Case No.105/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatgaon, Dist. Raipur convicting the applicants under Section 39 of the Electricity Act and Section 304-A of IPC and sentencing them to RI for 6-6 months and fine of Rs.1,000/- - 1,000/- and in default thereof, further SI for 15 days each under the aforesaid sections with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2025.10.29 17:08:54 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.08.1999 at 9:30 am while the deceased Chandrahas was going to manure in his field at village Muchmalda, he came in contact with an electric wire scattered on the field of the applicants and fell on the ground, on seeing this incident, deceased’s brother and sister took him to Government Hospital, Sarsiva, but unfortunately he was declared dead. During investigation, it was found that the applicants theft the electric wire and used the same in their field which led to their arrest by the Police Station Sarsiva. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned JMFC Court. The applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non- guilty. 4. Learned Trial Court and that of appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicants and confines his argument on sentence part only, which according to him is on higher side. He further submits that the deceased himself went to the field of the applicants and came in contact with the electric wire. He also contends that the applicants are in jail since 27.07.2011 to 12.08.2011 and thus he remained in jail for 17 days and that, there are no criminal antecedents against them and they are facing the lis since September, 1999, i.e., for more than 26 years and at present the applicants are aged more than 60 & 65 years of age. Lastly, he submits that fine amount has been deposited. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 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. As regards conviction of the applicants, considering the statements of the Dinesh Kumar (P.W.4) and Kumari Santoshi (P.W.6) and other evidence available on 3 record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding and does not call for interference. 9. Regarding sentence of the applicants, further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicants have remained in custody for 17 days, there are no criminal antecedents against them and they are facing the lis since September, 1999, i.e., for more than 26 years and further considering that the applicants are now aged more than 60 & 65 years, 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 the period already undergone by them, however, the fine sentence and direction to run sentences concurrently is affirmed. 11. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of B.N.S.S. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani