Mohd. Muslim vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 4322 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Mohd. Muslim vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 September, 2025

                                                       1




                                                                       2025:CGHC:45910
                                                                                       NAFR

                          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                            CRR No. 374 of 2016

             Mohd. Muslim S/o Sher Mohammad Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Malga, Police
             Station Bhatgaon, Civil And Rev. District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
Digitally
signed by
ALLENA                                                                          ... Applicant
ANJANI
KUMAR
Date:
2025.09.10
                                                    versus
14:06:07
+0530
             State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Out Post Bhatgaon, Police
             Station Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
                                                                            ... Non-Applicant
             For Applicant          :   Ms. Gunja Taran appears on behalf of Shri Anil Gulati,
                                        Advocate.
             For Respondent/State :     Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate.

(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

Order on Board

09/09/2025

1. The applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 22.04.2016 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, Dist. Surajpur C.G. in Criminal

Appeal No.16/2016, affirming the judgment dated 14.03.2016 passed in Criminal

Case No.480/2011 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pratappur, Dist.Surajpur

C.G., whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 498-A of Indian Penal

Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one

year and fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional

rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a report was lodged by the

complainant Safirina Bibi before in the Outpost Bhatgaon, Dist. Surguja on

23.11.2000 stating therein that prior to 3 years, her marriage was solemnised with

the accused/applicant and after one year of marriage, the accused/applicant started

torturing and committing assaulted her for bringing motorcycle and cash of

Rs.10,000/- which was informed to her brother and father who used to help her

sometimes Rs.1000/- and Rs.2,000/- and the complainant used to come to her

matrimonial house with such amount. On 09.11.2000, her husband (applicant)

again assaulted her by hands and fists and ultimately drove her out from the house

on 10.11.2000. Being fed up with ill-treatment by the applicant, she lodged the

report. On the basis of written report, FIR (Ex.P-1) has been lodged against the

applicant under Section 498-A of IPC. Statements of witnesses were recorded

under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The applicant

abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

4. Learned court of JMFC and the appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in

paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this revision.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that she does not want

to press this revision on conviction part and confines her argument to the sentence

part only, which according to her is on higher side. She further submits that at the

time of incident, the applicant was young boy and is facing lis since 2000, i.e., for

about 25 years. She further submits that he remained in jail since 22.04.2016 to

27.04.2016 i.e., for a period of 6 days, he has no criminal antecedents. She further

contends that fine amount has already been deposited. Therefore, it is prayed by

counsel for the applicant that the jail sentence awarded to applicant may be reduced

to the period already undergone by him.

6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported

the impugned judgment.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused

the record.

8. Considering the evidence of P.W.2 Safirina Bibi (complainant/victim)

supported by the evidence of P.W.1 Ahmed Ali, P.W.3 Sheikh Mohammed, father of

the complainant, P.W.4 Shahban Mohammed, brother of the victim and other

evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the

finding recorded by the Court of JMFC Court as well as by the Appellate Court,

being based on the evidence available on record, is a correct finding. Therefore, I

hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicant.

9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the

case and further considering the fact that the applicant remained in jail for 6 days,

has no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis from 2000 i.e. for about 25 years

and further that, the applicant was a young boy at the time of incident, I am of the

view that the 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. However, the fine amount with default sentence imposed by the

Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court for the aforesaid offence shall remain

intact.

10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant

under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period

already undergone by them.

11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall

remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section

481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Samhita, 2023.

Sd/-

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

Anjani