1 CGHC010082212024 2026:CGHC:35610 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 324 of 2024 Chattu Maurya S/o Krishna Maurya Aged About 34 Years R/o Santoshi Para, Near Durga Pandal, Camp -2, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anurag Jha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2026 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 01.03.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No. 226/2023, whereby it has affirmed the order passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District- Durg in Criminal Case No. 1236480/2013 by which the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced for the offence as under: Conviction under Section : Sentence Under Section 456 of Indian Penal Code : 06 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Under Section 354 of Indian 01 year rigorous imprisonment with PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.13 17:08:18 +0530 2 Penal Code fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount to further undergo simple imprisonment for one months. (Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently) 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.09.2013 at about 21:30 hours, the victim was present in her house along with her devrani when the accused entered the house and allegedly attempted to outrage her modesty. It is further submitted that a counter-case was also registered against the relatives of the victim, alleging that they had assaulted the revisioner. Thereafter, a compromise was entered into between the parties, however, the same was not considered by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that there is not an iota of evidence against the revisioner/applicant to establish the alleged offence and, therefore, the conviction is contrary to law and the evidence available on record. Both the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence and have overlooked the material contradictions and circumstances favourable to the revisioner/applicant. There is no clinching or cogent evidence on record warranting the conviction of the revisioner/applicant. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserve to be set aside. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant do not challenge their conviction, learned counsel only emphasized that the sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant has already undergone about 01 month of jail sentence. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of 3 justice by enhancing the fine amount. He further submits that the fine amount has already been deposited. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondent/State would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of both the Courts and records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the revisionist as mentioned in the opening paragraph. 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 learned 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 and sentence of the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC. 7. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant is facing criminal trial since 2023 and thereafter more than 02 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone about 01 month of jail sentence, there would be no useful purpose to send 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 R.I. for 06 months with fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to 4 further undergo R.I. for 15 days under Section 456 of IPC, and R.I. for 01 year with fine amount of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month under Section 354 of IPC to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 01 month of jail sentence, however fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to 3,000/- for the offence under Section 456 of IPC and from Rs. 2,000/- to 7,000/- for the offence under Section 354 of IPC in addition to the fine amount already awarded by the trial Court. The enhanced fine amount of Rs. 10,000/-, shall be deposited by the applicant, in addition to the fine amount already deposited by him, within a period of two months from today before the concerned trial Court and the same shall be paid to the victim (PW-2) if alive or to her legal heirs in equal proportion if they are more than one, 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 trial Court. Ordered accordingly. 8. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 9. 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 Preeti