1 CGHC010035662017 2026:CGHC:30030 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 907 of 2017 1. Ramkumar, S/o Mathura Prasad, aged about 37 Years, 2. Shriram, S/o Mathura Prasad, aged about 35 Years, 3. Punni Ram, S/o Baisakhu Sahu, aged about 40 Years, 4. Salik Ram, S/o Ganesh Ram, aged about 35 Years, All are R/o Village Chamari Tingipur, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicants versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Anand Shukla along with Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocates. For Non-applicant : Mr. Hrishikesh Sharma and Mr. Amiya Bhusan Sharma, Panel Lawyers. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 15/07/2026 1. The applicants have preferred the present criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing the judgment dated 12.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No. 04/2017. By the said judgment, the learned appellate Court, while partly allowing the appeal against the judgment AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.07.15 16:58:01 +0530 2 dated 31.12.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, C.G. in Criminal Case No. 205/2013, has affirmed the conviction of the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 323/149 (three counts) of IPC along with fine amounts of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,500/- each respectively, including the default sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment on each count. The conviction of the applicants under Section 325/149 of IPC (two counts) has also been affirmed. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment has been modified from six months’ rigorous imprisonment to three months’ rigorous imprisonment on each count, along with a fine of Rs.500/- on each count and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.06.2012 at about 1:00 p.m., owing to a dispute relating to unauthorized possession of land, the applicants/accused formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the PW-1 Guhadas, PW-3 Amol Das and his family members with lathis, causing injuries to them. It is alleged that accused- Shriram assaulted PW-1 Guhadas while the other accused persons also assaulted PW-3 Amol Das and the family members. On the basis of the report lodged by PW-3 Amol Das, FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered against the applicants. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Judicial Magistrate, Mungeli, C.G. The applicants abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this order. Being 3 aggrieved, the applicants preferred a criminal appeal against the said judgment. The appellate Court, vide judgment dated 12.09.2017, partly allowed the appeal in the manner indicated hereinabove. Hence, the present criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press this revision on conviction part of the applicants but confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that applicants have remained in jail for 14 days i.e. from 12.09.2017 to 25.09.2017, they have no criminal antecedents and they are facing the lis since June, 2012, i.e. for more than 14 years. He also submits that the fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned trial Court. He also submits that there was an old land dispute between the parties and that the applicants are poor villagers. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the applicants 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 Guhadas, PW-2 Devki Bai, PW-3 Amol Das/complainant, PW-6 Sevak Das, PW-7 Vivek Das, PW-9 P.R. Jagat, I.O. coupled with the medical evidence of PW-5 Dr. Archana Singh 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. 4 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Manjappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 6 SCC 231 and also considering the fact that the applicants have undergone 14 days, they are facing the lis since June, 2012 i.e. for more than 14 years, there is no criminal antecedents against them and looking to the fact that there was an old land dispute between the parties, 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. 10. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the applicants under the aforesaid Sections, the sentence imposed thereunder by the Appellate Court is hereby modified and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The fine sentence is affirmed. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 11. It is reported that the applicants are on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and shall remain operative for a further period of six months in light of Section 481 of the BNSS. 12. Let a certified copy of this order along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary information and action. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh