1 2025:CGHC:20215 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 982 of 2016 1. Onkar Sonwani @ Rinku S/o Lachhindhar Sonwani, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Goranga, Post Office And Police Station - Bakaband, District - Jagdalpur (Bastar) Chhattisgarh, Present R/o Village Golamal, Post Office And Police Station - Devbhog, District – Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, 2. Adhiram @ Bittu Pradhan, S/o Adalram Pradha, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Chichiya, Post Office And Police Station Devbhog, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, 3. Umesh Pradhan, S/o Laxminarayan Pradhan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village - Chichiya, Post Office And Police Station Devbhog, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, 4. Goutam Pradhan, S/o Kesar Pradhan, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Chichiya, Post Office And Police Station Devbhog, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicants versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 02/05/2025 PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.02 17:07:32 +0530 2 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariaband, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.48/2015 arising out of judgment dated 27.10.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Devbhog, District – Gariaband in Criminal Case No.150/2014 wherein the applicants/accused persons have been convicted under Section 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years each and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month. The learned Appellate Court affirmed the said judgment, hence, this revision. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, namely, Bholeshwar Khare (PW-01) lodged a report in the police station – Devbhog, District – Gariaband, to the effect that the accused persons/applicants came to the office and threatened the complainant to life and demanded Rs.45,000/- from him saying that they are naxalites and due to fear the complainant and other persons gave Rs.10,000/- to them (accused persons). Thereafter, the accused persons again came to the house of the complainant and demanded rest of the money and at that time brother of the complainant came there and caught hold the accused persons. On the basis of the said report, FIR was lodged. During investigation, the accused persons/applicants were arrested. Statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the 3 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Devbhog, District Gariaband, (C.G.). The applicants abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty. 4. The Court of learned JMFC as well as the Appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants/accused persons as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that she does not want to press this revision on conviction of the applicants, but confines her argument to the sentence part only, which according to her, is on higher side. She further submits that accused persons are poor villagers and three of them are young persons. She further submits that the applicant No.1 – Onkar Sonwani @ Rinku, applicant No.2 – Adhiram @ Bittu Pradhan, applicant No.3- Umesh Pradhan and applicant No.4 – Goutam Pradhan have remained in jail during trial for 110, 88, 88, 104 days respectively, however, they have also remained in jail for further 24 days after the judgment of the appellate Court i.e. total 134, 112, 112 and 128 days respectively. She further submits that they have no criminal antecedents and they are facing lis since June, 2014. She also submits that the fine amount has already been deposited with the concerned trial Court. 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. Considering the statements of complainant Bholeshwar Khare 4 (PW-01), Sanjay Khare (PW-03), and the other evidence and material 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 a correct finding and I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicants/accused persons. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the facts that applicants have remained in jail, they are facing the lis since June, 2014 i.e. about 11 years, there are no criminal antecedents against them and fine amount has already been deposited, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period of 112 days which has already been 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 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 437-A of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash