Madhudev Bariha vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5203 Chatt

                                           1


                                                                               NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            Criminal Revision No. 317 of 2011
      Madhudev Bariha, S/o Prem Singh Bariha, aged about 38 years, R/o
       Gayatripur, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

                                                                        ---- Applicant
                                         Versus
      State of Chhattisgarh,         Through- Police   Station   -   Basna,   District
       Mahasamund (C.G.)
                                                          ---- Non-Applicant/State
  For Applicant                   :       Shri Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate
  For Non-Applicant/State         :       Smt. Pushpalata Khalko, Panel Lawyer
                  Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
                                Order on Board
17.08.2022
   1.

The applicant has filed the instant criminal revision under Section 397 read

with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction & sentence

dated 28.05.2011 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge,

Mahasamund (C.G.) in Cr.A. No. 194/2010, whereby the conviction and

sentence recorded by the learned J.M.F.C. Saraipali, District Mahasamund

in Criminal Case. No. 341/10 dated 30.09.2010 has been affirmed. The

applicant was convicted under Section 325 of IPC by the trial Court and

sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of

payment of fine, further R.I. for two months.

2. The allegation against the applicant was that on 01.07.2010 at about 04:00

pm, victim/complainant namely Phool Bai had gone to her agricultural field

for sowing paddy, at that time the present applicant reached there, abused

her, when she ran from spot, he chased her and assaulted her by means of

axe and wooden club. The complainant sustained injuries on her both legs.

The incident was witnessed by many persons who were present at nearby

field. The F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Basna and Crime No. 167/2010

for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 & 506 B of IPC was

registered against the applicant. The police after investigation, filed charge-

sheet wherein Section 325 of IPC was added.

3. The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 294, 325 & 506 B of

IPC. The applicant abjured the charges framed against him. Prosecution

examined 08 witnesses to prove guilt of the applicant and exhibited 07

documents. Statement of the applicant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was

recorded. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence, acquitted the applicant for offence punishable under Sections 294

& 506 B of IPC and convicted him under Section 325 of IPC as mentioned in

para-1 of this order. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an appeal against the

judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.09.2010 recorded by trial

Court before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund

(C.G.) and the same was heard and decided in Cr.A. No. 194/2010 by

affirming the judgment dated 30.09.2010.

4. The applicant has preferred the instant criminal revision against the

judgment and conviction dated 28.05.2011 passed by the Second Additional

Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.).

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier the offence under

Section 323 of IPC was registered and without sufficient medical evidence, it

was altered to Section 325 of IPC. He further submits that he has falsely

been implicated in the crime in question and prosecution witnesses have not

supported the prosecution case. Therefore, looking to the facts and

circumstances of the case, the sentence recorded by courts below against

the applicant is too harsh.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the argument

advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supported the

judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the

courts below.

8. Vide Ex.-P/1, on 12.07.2010 wooden club and axe were seized from the

possession of the applicant. The F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant

herself (PW-7) and she has proved the contents of the F.I.R. The treating Dr.

J.P. Pradhan (PW-6) in his report Ex.-P/4 found seven injuries on various

parts of body of the complainant. The complainant was referred to Medical

College Hospital Raipur where in X-ray, it was revealed that there were

fracture of tibia bone of right leg and fracture of fibula bone of left leg.

9. The medical evidence recorded as stated by Doctor (PW-6) has not rebutted

by the applicant. Therefore, it can be said that the act of the applicant was

within the purview of Section 325 of IPC and thus, the trial Court has not

committed any illegality in convicting the applicant under Section 325 of IPC

and further the lower Appellate Court has not committed any illegality in

affirming the same.

10. Now coming to the question of reduction of sentence which is awarded to

the applicant. The incident had taken place in the year 2010 at that time age

of the applicant was 38 years. There were fractures on the both legs of the

complainant. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant was on

bail during trial as well as during the pendency of appeal and from the date

of judgment passed by lower Appellate Court. This Court is of the opinion

that the sentence awarded to the applicant cannot be reduced to the period

already undergone, but looking to the nature of injuries and gravity of

offence, the sentence of applicant recorded by the courts below can be

reduced from two years to one year and fine amount imposed upon him can

be enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. As per order-sheet dated

30.09.2010 of J.M.F.C., Saraipali, fine amount of Rs.1,000/- has already

been deposited by the applicant vide receipt no. 166325/40, therefore, the

enhanced amount of fine of Rs.4,000/- shall be payable to the

victim/complaint as per provisions of Section 357 of Cr.P.C.

11. Consequently, the instant criminal revision is allowed in part. The conviction

of the applicant is maintained but substantive jail sentence is reduced from

two years R.I. to one year R.I. and fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1,000/-

to Rs.5,000/-. The enhanced fine amount shall be payable to injured as per

provisions of Section 357 of Cr.P.C.

12. The applicant is reported to be on bail, his bail bonds so furnished stand

cancelled. The applicant is directed to surrender before the trial and to be

taken into custody forthwith to serve the remaining part of the sentence

awarded to him.

13. In the result, the criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated

above.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

vatti