1 / 5 2025:CGHC:11514 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 198 of 2025 1 - Smt. Santra Bai Sahu W/o Manoj Kumar Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village-Rogda, Police Station - Nawagarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)--- (Complainant). ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Nawagarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 2 - Smt. Mamta Kashyap, W/o Ramkrishna Kashyap Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Rogda, Police Station - Nawagarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). --- (Accused). ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. D. Kushwaha, Advocate For State /Respondent No.1 : Ms. Priya Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 07/03/2025 1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 03/01/2025 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa in Criminal Appeal No.41/2024, arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/02/2024 passed by the Judicial ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.03.28 12:04:18 +0530 2 / 5 Magistrate First Class, Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa in Criminal Case No.230/2021. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant/complainant Santara Bai lodged a report in the Navagarh police station that on 01.05.2021 at 04.00 pm, when the Respondent No.2/accused Mamta Bai Kashyap, who lives in her neighbourhood, on being refused to throw dirty water at the door of the house of the complainant, all the accused Mamta Bai Kashyap, Nirmala Bai Kurmi and Annu Kashyap together abused her with filthy language and threatened to kill her and beat her with a stick and injured her. The accused also beat the applicant's daughter Yogeshwari who came to intervene. As a result of the beating, the complainant Santara Bai sustained injuries in her hand and the injured Yogeshwari sustained injuries in other parts of the body. On report of the complainant, a crime was registered and investigation was done. On the evidence collected during the investigation, the crime described against the accused was found to be fully proven and they were arrested and thereafter they were released. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 28/02/2024 convicted the Respondent No.2/accused as under:- Conviction Sentence Under section 294 of the IPC Fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 15 days Under Section 323/34 of the IPC Fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 15 days 3 / 5 Under Section 325/34 of the IPC R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 15 days 4. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment, the Respondent No.2 has filed criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge, Janjgir and the said Court by the impugned judgment dated 03/01/2025 maintained the conviction, however, reduced the sentence of 06 months R.I. under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced the Respondent No.2 till rising of the Court with fine of Rs.10,000/-. Hence this criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned judgment dated 03.01.2025 passed by the appellate Court is bad in law, perverse, erroneous, therefore it is liable to be set-aside. He would next contend that the learned appellate court has committed grave error of law in interfering into the well reasoned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court for the offence U/s 325/34 of IPC. He would next contend that the learned appellate court ought not to have reduced the sentence passed by the trial Court for the offence U/s 325/34 of IPC in respect of Respondent No. 2. He would next contend that since the learned appellate Court has not found any illegality or irregularity in the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, therefore, it ought not to have interfered into the judgment of the trial Court. He would next contend that the leaned appellate court has failed to appreciate that the Respondent No. 2 and other co-accused persons have abused the applicant with filthy and derogative language in public place and threatened her and assaulted to the applicant and Yogeshwari. 4 / 5 He would next contend that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the Respondent No. 2, which is just and property to meet the ends of justice. He would next contend that the learned appellate court has committed error of law in adopting liberal approach against the offender/ non-applicant no. 2. He would lastly contend that the learned appellate court has failed to appreciate the evidence and documents placed before it in its correct perspective, therefore the impugned judgment passed by the appellate court is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the learned Sessions Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned appellate Court, after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses as also considering the nature of offence and after applying the mind judiciously has maintained the conviction and reduced the sentence period and enhanced the fine amount awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.230/2021. 9. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in maintaining the conviction and sentence of Respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 294, 323/34 5 / 5 of IPC and reducing the sentence of 06 months R.I. under Section 325/34 of IPC till rising of the Court with fine of Rs.10,000/-. 10. Accordingly, the the criminal revision is dismissed. 11. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu