Chattisgarh High Court
Bhushan Tarak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2023
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revison No.643 of 2011
Bhushan Tarak, S/o Devideen Tarak, aged about 21 years,
R/o Raipura Mahadev Ghat, Thana D.D. Nagar, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Rajim,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan,
Advocate.
For State/Respondent : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Dy. Govt.
Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Order on Board
05.01.2023
1. This revision has been preferred under Section
397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by
the applicant against the judgment dated 04.11.2011
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Gariyaband, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal
No. 76/2011, arising out of judgment dated
06.08.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class Rajim, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.
587/2009. Whereby, the Applicant has been convicted
under Sections 341, 354 & 323(twice) of the I.P.C. and
sentenced SI for 1 month with fine of Rs.100/-, RI for 6
months with fine of Rs.100/- and RI for 6-6 months
with fine of Rs.100-100/- respectively, with default
stipulations. The above sentence of the Applicant was
also affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Gariyaband, District Raipur (C.G.).
2. According to the case of prosecution, the complainant
who was aged about 16 years lodged a complaint
against the Applicant stated therein that on
16.08.2009 at around 6 PM, when she was returning
from a shop, the Applicant stopped her and forcefully
kissed on her lips. It is further alleged that when
mother of the complainant namely Hirondi Bai tried to
intervene, the Applicant also assaulted her. Thereafter,
FIR was lodged by Hirondi Bai, on the basis of above,
offence has been registered against the Applicant.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been
filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class(JMFC). Learned JMFC vide its judgment dated
06.08.2011, convicted the Applicant. Vide impugned
judgment dated 04.11.2011, the Appellate Court also
affirmed the conviction of the Applicant as mentioned in
paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this revision.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant
submits that he does not want to press this revision on
merits and confines his argument to the sentence part
only. He further submits that the Applicant has already
undergone more than 20 days in jail. He has no
criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since 2009
i.e.. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence
awarded to him may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
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 Applicant is
facing the lis since 2009 and there is no criminal
antecedent against him. I am of the view that the ends
of justice would be met if, while upholding the
conviction imposed upon the Applicant, the jail
sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
8. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The
conviction of the Applicant under Sections 341, 354 &
323(twice) of the I.P.C. is affirmed and against the
conviction, he is sentenced to the period already
undergone by him. The fine sentence for the above
offence is also affirmed.
9. It is reported that the Applicant is on bail. His 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
