Bechan Ram And Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 129 Chatt

                                                               NAFR



         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                 Criminal Revision No.482 of 2010

    1. Bechan Ram, S/o Khedu Ram Kanwar, aged about 35
      years, R/o Village Ghughri Kala, Police Station and Tehsil
      Kusmi, District Surguja (C.G.)

    2. Bignaram, S/o Badul Kanwar, aged about 36 years, R/o
      Village Ghughri Kala, Police Station and Tehsil Kusmi,
      District Surguja (C.G.)

    3. Ramu, S/o Lohra Kanwar, aged about 40 years, R/o
      Village Ghughri Kala, Police Station and Tehsil Kusmi,
      District Surguja (C.G.)

                                                      ---- Applicants

                              Versus

     State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer,
      Police Station Kusmi, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

                                                 ---- Respondent

For Applicants : Ms. Anubhuti Marhas, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Trivikarm Nayak, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Order on Board

06.01.2023

1. This revision has been preferred under Section 397

read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 by the Applicants against the

judgment dated 07.09.2010 passed by the learned

Additional Session Judge, F.T.C., Surguja (Ambikapur)

in Criminal Appeal No. 55/2010, arising out of

judgment dated 25.02.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur (C.G.) in Criminal

Case No. 550/2009. Whereby, the Applicants have been

convicted under Sections 342 & 323 of the Indian Penal

Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 months with

fine of Rs.200/- and RI for 4 months with fine of

Rs.200/- respectively, with default stipulations. The

above sentence of the Applicants was also affirmed by

the learned Additional Session Judge, F.T.C., Surguja

(Ambikapur).

2. According to the case of prosecution, due to some

dispute between complainant Subey and the

Applicants, during village meeting, the Applicants

assaulted the complainant Subey and wrongfully

restrained him by tying him with ropes. On the basis of

above background, the matter was reported by the

Complainant and thereafter the offence has been

registered against the Applicants. After completion of

investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur.

3. After completion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the

Applicants which was also affirmed by the Appellate

Court as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Judgment.

Hence, this revision.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants

submits that she does not want to press this revision

on merits and confines her argument to the sentence part only. She further submits that the Applicants are

the poor persons and have already undergone about 15

days in jail. They have no criminal antecedents and are

facing the lis since 2003. Therefore, it is prayed that the

jail sentence awarded to them may be reduced to the

period already undergone by them.

5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the

revision and supported the impugned judgment.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

parties and perused the record available with utmost

circumspection.

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the

case, particularly considering that the Applicants are

facing the lis since 2003 and there is no criminal

antecedents against them. 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.

8. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The

conviction of the Applicants under Sections 342 & 323

of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed and against the

conviction, they are sentenced to the period already

undergone by them. The fine sentence for the

aforementioned Sections are also affirmed.

9. It is reported that the Applicants are on bail. Their bail

bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same

shall remain operative for a further period of six

months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

10. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a

copy of this order forthwith for information and

necessary compliance.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham