1 2025:CGHC:60271 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1100 of 2016 1 - Daulal Banjare S/o Jethu Ram Satanami Aged About 58 Years 2 - Bhukhan Das S/o Daulal Banjare Aged About 28 Years 3 - Nand Kumar S/o Daulal Banjare Aged About 24 Years All R/o Village Tipavan, Police Station And Tahsil Pallari, Civil Revenue And District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Pallari, Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Shri Santosh Kumar Verma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Sachidanand Yadav, P.L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 11/12/2025 Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.11.2016 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazaar, Dist. Balodabazaar-Bhatapara C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.103/2015, whereby the learned appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants herein, while affirming the judgment 04.12.2015 passed by the Court of J.M.F.C., Balodabazaar, in Criminal Case No.372/2013 convicting the applicants under Sections 323/34 and 326/34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo RI for one year- Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2025.12.11 17:45:48 +0530 2 one year with fine of Rs.500/- each and to undergo RI for two years- two years with fine of Rs.500/- each and in default thereof, to undergo additional SI for one month each count, while directing that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Both the learned Courts, however, acquitted them of the charges under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.07.2013 at about 08:30 pm, in furtherance of their common intention, the accused-Bhukhan Banjare assaulted Kamal Narayan by axe and other accused persons by sticks and after assault, threatened him life and abused him. Due to assault by the applicants, the victim Kamal Narayan sustained simple and grievous injuries. On the basis of report, F.I.R. was lodged vide Ex.P.1. During investigation, the injured was sent to medical examination. Axe was seized from the possession of Bhukhan Banjre and bamboo stick was seized from possession of Nandkumar Banjare. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balodabazaar. The applicants abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty. 4. The learned Court of JMFC and the appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in Para 1 of this order. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to challenge this revision on conviction part of the applicants but challenging the sentence part only, which according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the applicants are rustic villagers and that, applicant/accused No.1 Daulal Banjare is abed about 70 years. He also submits that the applicants remained in jail for 11 days, i.e., from 3 23.11.2016 to 01.12.2016 and 2 days during trial, there are no criminal antecedents against them and they are facing the lis since July, 2013, i.e. for more than 12 years. He also submits that fine amount imposed upon them has been deposited before the 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 PW-1 Omprakash, P.W.5 Kamal Narayan and that of medical evidence of P.W.9 Y.K.Verma (Medical Officer) 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. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the applicants have undergone 11 days jail sentence, they are facing the lis since July, 2013 i.e. for more than 12 years, there are no criminal antecedents against them and that, A-1 Daulal is presently aged about 70 years, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. It is made clear that sentence of fine amount, the default sentence and the direction to run sentences concurrently shall remain in tact. 4 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the applicants under the aforesaid Sections, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is hereby modified 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