1 2025:CGHC:57204 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1406 of 2025 Indrajeet Sahu S/o Shri Narayan Singh Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 8/c, Ward No. 08, Kohkha, Indrawati Nagar, Chowki Smriti Nagar, P S Suhela, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Supela District Durg Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned As Through District Magistrate In The Cause Title) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 25/11/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2. The present criminal revision is filed by the applicant under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the judgment dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Learned 9th Additional 2 Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Appeal No. 174/2025, wherein the appeal preferred by the applicant was dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dirg, District- Durg in Criminal Case No. 3216/2020 was upheld, wherein the applicant was convicted as under: Conviction Sentence u/S 323 of IPC Fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of fine, S.I. for 15 days. 3. Relevant facts leading to disposal of the case are that, a complaint was filed at Police Station Supela, District- Durg by the complainant/wife of the applicant, alleging that on 24.05.2020 at around 02:05 hrs, the applicant abused the complainant and threatened her for life and also hit her with hand and fists. The police investigated the matter and the FIR was registered bearing no. 317/2020 under Sections 294, 506 Part II and 323 of IPC, against the applicant. The prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses to prove its case, however despite the Prosecution utterly failing in its obligation to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt the Learned Trial Court convicted the applicant under Section 323 of IPC, imposing a fine of Rs. 500/- by assigning erroneous reasons vide its judgment dated 14.01.2025. The learned trial Court convicted the applicant only on the basis of statement of the complainant/ PW-05. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.01.2025 the respondent filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which was registered as Criminal 3 Appeal No. 174/2025. The learned appellate court rejected the criminal appeal and upheld the judgment passed by the learned trial court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the trial and appellate courts have ignored key inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence and convicted the applicant on the basis of surmises and conjectures. As per the version of victim she was injured at the time of incidence with bleeding. However, the MLC Exhibit- P/3 shows that there are no such injuries. It furthermore, shows that the victim refused Sonography. None of the other witnesses corroborate the version of the victim. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is bad in law and in facts and thus liable to be set aside and the applicant deserves to be acquitted. She further contended that the applicant is a government servant working as Junior Electrical Engineer, at Bhilai Steel Plant, and if the conviction of the applicant is not suspended, his job would be at risk. The instant case is merely a marital dispute. 5. Learned State counsel opposed the contention made by the counsel for the applicant and would contend that the judgments passed by both the courts below are true and correct and do not need any interference. Hence, the present criminal revision deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 4 7. Perusal of record shows that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) vide its judgment dated 04.01.2025 convicted the present applicant under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 15 days. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 04.01.2025, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. The learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) vide its judgment dated 23.09.2025 partly allowed the appeal wherein the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg has affirmed the conviction under Section 323 of IPC and held that the offence under Section 323 of IPC is not an offence of moral turpitude and released the applicant on probation of good conduct under Section 360(4) of Cr.P.C. after executing a bond. 8. The date of offence relates back to 24th May, 2020. However, more than 5 years have passed since the date of the incident. Prior to the incident of crime, the applicant was not involved in any crime. The case is of marital dispute. During these 5 years too, he did not indulge in any further crime. Moreover, the applicant is a government servant working as Junior Electrical Engineer at Bhilai Steel Plant. 9. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 provides as under: “12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, 5 a person guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under Section 4 is subsequently sentenced for the original offence.” 10. The Allahabad High Court in Radheshyam and Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Revision No. 436/2014 judgment dated 20.09.2023 held that “Offence under Section 323 of IPC is not an offence of moral turpitude, therefore in the light of Hon’ble Apex Court it appears that a person released on probation of good conduct will not incur any disqualification due to conviction recorded by trial court as provided under Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.” 11. In the present case, the sentence imposed is minimal, and the circumstances of the case indicate that the ends of justice would be met by extending the statutory protection available under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. At the same time, the findings recorded by the court below does not warrant interference. 12. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be partly allowed, limited to granting the petitioner/accused the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, while maintaining the conviction and sentence. 6 13. In view of the above, the present petition is partly-allowed. The conviction of the petitioner/accused under Section 323 IPC and the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- (with default stipulation) are affirmed. The petitioner/accused is granted the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and it is directed that the conviction shall not entail any disqualification attaching to his service, employment, or civil rights. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima