1 2026:CGHC:6051 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 217 of 2017 Chingadu Ram Yadav S/o Chaitan Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Garenga Sadak Para Police Station Karpawand Revenue And Civil District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Karpawand District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rishiraj Pithawa, Dy. G.A. HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA Order on Board 03/02/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.01.2017 passed in Sessions Case No. 9 of 2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar, Place: Jagdalpur (C.G.) wherein, the Appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years. 2. According to the case of prosecution, on 18.08.2016, at about 08:00 pm, 2 the appellant has assaulted the victim with the help of ‘Kadari’, due to which the victim has lodged the FIR before the police station and on that basis the police has lodged the FIR under Section 307 of IPC and 3 (2) (v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. After due investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet before the competent court of law at Bastar (Jagdalpur) under Section 307 of IPC and 3 (2) (v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. To robe the Appellant in the crime-in-question prosecution examined as many as total 11 witnesses. In the statement of Appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, Appellant pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter, however no defence witness was examined by the Appellant. After completion of trial, Trial Court acquitted the appellant under the aforesaid sections and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in Para 01 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him is on higher side. He further submits that the appellant has remained in jail from 20.08.2016 to 13.01.2017, he is facing the lis since August 2016, he has no criminal antecedents, therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 4. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that out of total jail sentence of 2 years, the Appellant has 3 undergone about 4 months 25 days, he is facing the lis since August 2016 and there is no criminal antecedent against him and looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the Appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the Appellant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Saurabh