2025:CGHC:53757 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 569 of 2016 Ravi Kumar Tandi S/o Late Suresh Tandi, aged about 40 years R/o Titurdih, Near Water Tank, Durg, Police Station - Mohan Nagar, District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through The Station House Officer, Mohan Nagar, Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate with Mr. Aditya Srivastav, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 04.11 .2025 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 14.06.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 0000250 of 2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.), whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 17.09.2013 passed SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.11.04 16:46:52 +0530 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 1855 of 2008 was partly allowed, maintaining the conviction of the applicant but reducing the sentence as mentioned below: Conviction Sentence U/s 457 of IPC RI for 4 months with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for 1 month. U/s 323 of IPC RI for 3 months with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for 1 month. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.07.2008, the complainant, Sushila Bai, lodged a report at Police Station: Mohan Nagar, Durg alleging therein that on 04.07.2008 at about 10:00 pm, she along with her husband Dinesh Nirmalkar (PW-1) were sleeping in her house, at that time, the applicant came near her house and started abusing them and when they opposed him, the applicant broke the door of the complainant and assaulted her husband. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under Sections 457, 294, 506-B and 323 of IPC were registered against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid section was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicant under Section 457, 323 of IPC and sentenced him RI for two years, RI for one year respectively, with a fine of Rs. 500/- in each offence, and in default of payment of fine amount additional RI for one month. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 14.06.2016, partly allowed the appeal by maintaining the conviction of the applicant but reducing the sentence as mentiond in paragraph 1. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him is on higher side. He further submits that during trial the applicant has remained in jail for 19 days and after the judgment of the Trial Court he has remained in jail for 11 days i.e. from 14.06.2016 to 24.06.2016, he is facing the lis since July 2008, he has no criminal antecedents and the fine amount has already been deposited by him. He further submits that the applicant and the complainant are relatives, therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the statements of PW-1 Dinesh Nirmalkar (complainant) supported by his wife PW-2 Sushila Bai, coupled with the medical evidence of Dr. N.K. Bajpayee (PW-6) and other evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is a correct finding. 8. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone for 30 days, he is facing the lis since July 2008 i.e. for more than 17 years and there is no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed. However, both the sentences shall run concurrently. 10. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond 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 Saurabh