1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1105 of 2016 Dayalu Ram Korram S/o Gadaru @ Bharatu Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Mongarapal Chowki Bastar Police Station Kotwali Jagdalpur Revenue And Civil District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Frezerpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Smt. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 28/02/2025 Heard. 1. The applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.35/2016 whereby the judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bastar, in Criminal Case No.433/2013 convicting the applicant under Sections 326 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to pay fine amount, to further undergo RI for two months, was affirmed. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant/injured Dayashil and the applicant are father and the son. On 11.09.2011, the applicant and other co- accused person Tufan came to the house of the injured Dayashil and due to old Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.03.01 12:18:48 +0530 2 mutual enmity, asked the injured to return the motorcycle, which was refused by the injured on the ground that he will keep it, upon this, the applicant abused him in filthy language. Thereafter, applicant assaulted his son Dayashil with axe in his hand, due to which, Dayashil was injured. On a complaint being made by one Jagannath (P.W.1) a report was lodged vide Ex.P.1 at P.S. Frezerpur and during investigation, the applicant and other co-accused person were taken into custody. The injured Dayashil was examined by P.W.6 Dr. B.K.Franklin and his report is Ex.P.6. Axe was seized. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 3. Learned court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment, while acquitting the other co-accused person Tufan. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 27.08.2016, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the JMFC. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the applicant, but challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that applica- father and complainant-son Dayashil was having some land disputes and applicant is now aged about 60 years. He remained in jail for three months and five days, i.e., from 27.08.2016 to 02.12.2016, he is facing the lis since 08.12.2011 i.e. for more than 13 years. Lastly, he submits that fine amount has been deposited. Therefore, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that the jail sentence awarded to applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the statements of injured P.W.5 Dayashill supported by P.W.2 3 Shanti, P.W.8 Smt. Balmatii and the medical evidence of P.W.6 B.K.Franklin and P.W.9 Dr. Govind Singh as well as other evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Court of JMFC Court and affirmed by by the Appellate Court, being based on the evidence available on record, is a correct finding. Therefore, I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of the applicant. 8. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the applicant remained in jail for 3 months and 5 days, has no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis since 2011 i.e. for more than 13 years and now he is aged about 60 years, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period of 3 months 5 days, which was already undergone by him. However, the fine amount with default sentence imposed by the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court for the aforesaid offence shall remain intact 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. 10. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his 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 Anjani