1 2025:CGHC:60112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1135 of 2016 1 - Pramod Kumar Gupta S/o Murlidhar Gupta Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Basti, Baradwar, Thana Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, (Died and Deleted) 2 - Arun Kumar Gupta S/o Murlidhar Gupta Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Basti, Baradwar, Thana Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 3 - Pawan Kumar Gupta S/o Ashok Kumar Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Basti, Baradwar, Thana Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 4 - Santosh Kumar Gupta S/o Murlidhar Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Basti, Baradwar, Thana Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate District Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Shri Aman Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Sachidanand Yadav, P.L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 10/12/2025 Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.48/2015 by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (CG) whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal while upholding the Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2025.12.11 17:45:49 +0530 2 judgment dated 16.02.2015 passed in Criminal Case No.114/2011 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti, Dist. Jangir-Champa (CG) whereby, the trial Court, while acquitting them under Section 506 Part-II of IPC, convicted and sentenced the applicants as under :- Conviction Sentence 294 IPC To pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, totalling Rs.3,000/- and in default to pay fine, further R.I. for one month each. 323/34 IPC R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- each, totalling Rs.1,500/- and in default thereof, further R.I. for three months each. 326/34 R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, totalling Rs.3,000/- and in default to pay fine, further RI for 3 months each. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.12.2010 at 7:45 pm a dispute arose between the complainant – Dinesh Kumar and the applicants/accused persons and on account of previous enmity, the applicants/accused persons abused him and threatened to kill him. Accused – Pramod caused grievous injury on his finger with his teeth and also caused simple injuries to the injured Santosh by beating him with his hands and fists. On a report being lodged by the complainant, F.I.R. (Ex.P.1) has been registered against them and that injured person has been sent for medical examination. During investigation, statements of witnesses have been recorded. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti, Dist. Janjgir-Champa. The applicants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. Learned Court of J.M.F.C. as well as the appellate Court, after 3 appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded the finding of conviction and sentence as mentioned in para 1. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicants but is challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and that, they are facing the lis since 2010, i.e., for about 15 years. During trial, the applicants remained in jail from 03.03.2011 to 05.03.2011 and then from 30.11.2016 to 09.12.2016 and thus they have incarcerated the jail sentence for 13 days and they may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. He further submits that the fine amount has already been deposited in the concerned Court. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision while supporting the impugned judgment 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. During pendency of this revision, the applicant No.1 Pramod Kumar Gupta has died, and therefore, vide order dated 10.12.2025 the revision stands abated in so far as it relates to applicant No.1. 9. Considering the statement of the injured witnesses – Dinesh Kumar (P.W.1) and Santosh Kumar (P.W.3) supported by the medical evidence of P.W.5 Dr. P. Singh and further considering the other evidence and material documents available on record, I am of the view that both the Trial Court as well as appellate Court were justified in convicting the applicants as such and I hereby affirm the same. 10. As regards jail sentence of the applicants, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the 4 applicants remained in jail for a period of 13 days and they are facing the lis since 2010, i.e., for about 15 years and there are no criminal antecedents against them, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction of the applicants recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the jail sentences undergone by them shall run concurrently. The fine sentence shall remain in tact. 11. Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicants under the aforesaid sections is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 481 of the B.N.S.S. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani