1 2025:CGHC:24720 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 143 of 2021 Jeevan Sahu S/o Dukaluram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Mau, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/06/2025 1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.30/2019 (Jeevan Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh), affirming the judgment dated 01.05.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.90/2013, whereby the learned CJM has convicted the applicant for offence under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 RI for 01 year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 01 month. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.06.2012, Sushila Bai lodged a report at Nandghat Police Station, alleging that she was married to the applicant six years prior. After the marriage, the applicant allegedly began beating and harassing her for insufficient dowry. Despite the ill-treatment, she continued to tolerate it. However, upon returning to her matrimonial home on 03.10.2010, she discovered that the applicant had eloped with Kalyani Yadav, a resident of Janta Colony, Raipur. A month before filing the report, she learned that her husband was living with Kalyani Yadav in Ramnagar, Raipur, and they had two children together. Based on her report, an offense under Section 498A of the IPC was registered, and a charge-sheet was filed after investigation. The prosecution examined witnesses, and the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the CrPC, where he denied the allegations and claimed false implication. 3. The trial Court, after considering oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicant under Section 498A of the IPC vide order dated 01.05.2019 and sentence to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month. Being aggrieved by the same the applicant has preferred criminal appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.30.2019 before the appellate Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2021. Hence, the criminal revision. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the judgment of the trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned trial 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. Both the trial Court as well as appellate Court have failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the complainant. Alternatively, he submits that the trial Court has awarded the sentence of RI for 01 year and fine of Rs.500/- to the applicant. Considering the age of the applicant as applicant at present is aged about 35 years and as he has faced criminal trial since 2013, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant has already undergone 01 month and 21 days of jail sentence as the learned appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.30/2019 and bail was granted to him by this Court only on 17.03.2021. He also submits that the applicant has already deposited the fine amount imposed upon him by learned trial Court. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State, submits that both the trial Court and the appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant for offence under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 01 year and fine of Rs.500/-. In appeal preferred by the applicant, the appellate Court has maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicant. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting and sentencing the applicant and affirming the conviction of the applicant for offence under Section 498A of the IPC. 8. Now considering the question of sentence. As the criminal trial commenced on 04.03.2013 which continued till 01.05.2019 and though the appeal also continued for about 1 year 8 months and this revision petition was pending since 10.02.2021 and as such from the date of commencement of trial, more than 11 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone 1 month 21 days of jail sentence as the appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.90/2013 and bail was granted to him by this Court only on 17.03.2021, there would be no useful purpose to send 5 the applicant again in jail as he has already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 01 year under Section 498A of the IPC to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 1 month 21 days of jail sentence, however fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.10,000/- under Section 498A of the IPC in addition to the amount awarded by the trial Court. Enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the applicant within a period of two months from today before the concerned trial Court and the same shall be paid to wife/complainant, failing which the trial Court shall take him into custody in accordance with law to further undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the appellate Court. Ordered accordingly. 9. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 10. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil