1 2026:CGHC:18843 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 458 of 2017 Shriram @ Nanhu, S/o Kumar @ Manbodh, aged about 53 years, caste Aghariya, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Tarekela, P.S. Bramkela, District – Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through the Police Station House Officer, P.S. – Sarangarh, District – Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Aditya Khare, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Aman Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 24/04/2026 1. The present revision has been filed under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 20.04.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2016, arising out of the judgment dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 69/2005. By the said judgment, the applicant was convicted under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 498-A of IPC, and to PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.04.24 12:37:42 +0530 2 simple imprisonment for one month with a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 323 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the applicant was directed to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 15 days and 5 days respectively. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, the learned Appellate Court, while partly allowing the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 498-A of IPC and maintained the conviction under Section 323 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant, Smt. Mayamati, was married to the accused, Shriram @ Nanhu, about 20 years prior to the incident. It is alleged that from 15.01.2005 onwards, the accused subjected her to cruelty by harassing and assaulting her and demanding a motorcycle from her parental side. Owing to such ill- treatment, the complainant resided at her parental home for about 2½ years, leaving her son with the accused. Thereafter, on the occasion of a family ritual and upon persuasion by a villager, she returned to her matrimonial home along with her brother, however, the accused again assaulted her. On her report, the police registered an FIR (Ex.P-3), seized a wooden stick, and recorded statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh, against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in Criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide 3 judgment dated 20.04.2017 allowed the appeal in part. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 14 days i.e. from 20.04.2017 to 04.05.2017, he is facing the lis since January, 2005 i.e. for more than 21 years. She further submits that the fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned trial Court. Additionally, the applicant has been terminated from government service. The applicant is stated to be a poor villager and frequently remains ill. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is prayed that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of complainant- Mayavati (PW-3), father of the complainant- Pyari (PW-7), mother of the complainant- Phulobai Patel (PW-6) coupled with the evidence of Dr. R.L. Sidar (PW-9) and other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has been rightly convicted. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant is hereby affirmed. 4 9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that applicant has remained in jail for 14 days, he is facing the lis since January, 2005 i.e. for more than 21 years, he has no criminal antecedents, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is hereby affirmed. 11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision contained under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash