1 2025:CGHC:58843 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1343 of 2024 Sochit Alias Sachita Nand S/o Bhuneshwar Aged About 37 Years R/o Village - Kusmisarar, P.S. Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 04/12/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2025, an application for condonation of delay. 2 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after order of sentence and conviction, the applicant was not aware about the passing of the order and further some delay occurred due to ignorance of passing of the impugned order which is bonafide and not intentional and therefore, the delay so caused in filing the instant revision deserves to be condoned. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned therein, I am inclined to allow I.A. No. 02/2024 and the delay of 2341 days is hereby condoned. 4. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 5. The present criminal revision is filed by the applicant under Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 against the order/judgment of conviction passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No. 09/2015 on 08.04.2016 affirming the judgment/order dated 25.08.2015 in Criminal Case No. 690/2013 passed by Learned JMFC- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund whereby the applicant stands convicted as under: Conviction Sentence u/s 325 of IPC RI for 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of fine, further RI for 15 days. 6. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.09.2013 at 4:00 pm the complainant’s son and applicant’s son were playing together, and they were quarreling to each other, and the complainant 3 intervened and directed both to return home, and then the applicant caught hold the hand of the complainant’s child and started uttering filthy language and scolded complainant. The jeth also intervened and assaulted her. The complainant in turn has filed written complaint and on that basis the police has registered FIR to police station – Saraipali for the commission of offence under Section 294, 325/34 and 506-II of IPC against applicant and one another. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person and there was lack of sufficient material available on record to show that the applicant was involved in the crime of assault. The court below has not relied upon the reliable independent witnesses and made grave error by not considering the actuality of the depositions of the witnesses. The complainant has falsely roped the applicant in the instant crime and therefore conclusion fo guilty is not fully established. The judgment of the Trial Court as well as Sessions Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned Trial Court and Sessions Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the applicant and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this criminal revision on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the 4 applicant at present is aged about 37 years and as he is facing facing criminal trial since 2013 and is in jail since 19.09.2025 and has already undergone more than 2 months of the sentence awarded by the JMFC- Saraipali, C.G. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the applicant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. Learned Panel Laywer appearing for the respondent/State, sub- mits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 11. From perusal of record, it transpires that PW-1 stated in her chief- examination that the accused persons assaulted her, causing in- jury to her left hand finger. The medical confirmation of the injuries sustained by the victim was done by Dr. H.L. Jangde and after see- ing the X-ray report, a broken metacarpal bone was found in the left hand finger. Upon this the learned advocate appearing for the accused stated that the victim sustained injuries due to a fall and she sustained injuries on 08.09.2010 is not valid because on 07.09.2014, the doctor had advised an X-ray for swelling in the vic- tim’s left middle finger. After the X-ray, a serious injury was found on the same finger of the victim. Thus, the prosecution has been fully successful in proving the offence under Section 325 of IPC 5 against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court does not find that there is any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 12. As regards the sentence awarded to the applicant. Considering the fact that the applicant is facing criminal trial since 2013, consid- ering the age of the applicant at present, the short sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the Sessions Court, and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and he is in jail since 19.09.2025, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him under Section 325 of IPC. However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal revision is allowed in part. The applicant is held guilty of committing offence under Section 325 of IPC and is convicted for the said offence. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 14. The applicant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 15. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of CrPC, the ap- plicant is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the 6 aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 16. The Trial Court record (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compli- ance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge Madhurima