Chattisgarh High Court
Chandrika Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 September, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
PRAKASH
NAFR
PRAKASH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.09.18
17:56:07 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
+0530
Criminal Revision No. 679 of 2016
1 - Chandrika Yadav, S/o Late Birjhu Yadav, Aged About 35 Years,
2 - Nandkishor Yadav S/o Late Birjhu Yadav, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o Village - Kurkuria, Chokypandrapath, Thana and Tahsil - Bagicha, Civil
and Revenue Distt. - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh,
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bagicha Distt. Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh,
... Respondent
For Applicant : Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan along with Mr.
Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
17/09/2025
Heard.
1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal
Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment dated
02.07.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Jashpur
(C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.21/2016 arising out of judgment dated
10.03.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha,
District - Jashpur in Criminal Case No.498/2013 convicting the
applicants/accused persons under Sections 325/34 and 324/34 of
Indian Penal Code (in short the 'IPC') and sentencing them to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- each under
Section 325/34 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months and
fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 324/34 of IPC, and in default of
payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3-3
months (on each count) with a direction to run both the sentences
concurrently. The learned Appellate affirmed the conviction and
sentence of the accused persons, however, reduced the default
sentence from rigorous imprisonment of 3-3 months to 1-1 month.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.08.2013 at about 12:30
PM, when Ramashankar Yadav (PW-02) was working on the
agricultural land, at that time Chandrika Yadav and Nandkishore Yadav
(applicant No.1 & 2 herein respectively) came there and due to land
dispute, altercation took place between them and the applicants
abused Ramashankar in filthy language and assaulted him with the aid
of axe and iron stick, due to which victim Ramashankar sustained
simple and grievous injuries on his body. On the basis of the above
background, the brother of the victim, namely, Ghanshyam (PW-01)
lodged the FIR (Ex.P-1) against the accused persons. The victim
Ramashankar was medically examined by Dr. C.D. Bankhla (PW-06)
and Dr. A. Toppo (PW-07). Further, the victim has received one
grievous injury on metacarpal bone of his right hand. During
investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the
Judicial Magistrate Fist Class, Bagicha, District - Jashpur, (C.G.). The
applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.
4. The learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence acquitted the applicants under Sections 294 and 506-B of IPC
and convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in
paragraph 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in
criminal appeal, wherein the Appellate Court vide judgment dated
02.07.2016 maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicants,
however, the default sentence of R.I. 3-3 months has been reduced to
1-1 month (on each count). Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that she does
not want to challenge the conviction of the applicants and confines her
argument on the sentence part only, which according to her, is on
higher side. She further submits that the applicants have remained in
jail for 21 days i.e. from 02.07.2016 to 22.07.2016, they have no
criminal antecedents, they are facing the lis since August, 2013, i.e. for
more than 12 years, and at present, the applicant No.1 & 2 are aged
about 48 years and 60 years respectively. She further submits that the
victim has not suffered any grievous injury. This apart, the fine amount
has already been deposited before the concerned Trial Court.
Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced
to the period already undergone by them. Reliance has been placed on
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjappa
vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 6 SCC 231 in support of her argument.
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 statements of the injured witness namely,
Ramashankar Yadav (PW-02), Ghanshyam Yadav (PW-01),
Muneshwar Rajwade (PW-04) coupled with statements of Dr. C.D.
Bankhla (PW-06), Dr. A. Toppo (PW-07) and other evidence available
on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the
learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the
evidence available on record is correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm
the conviction of the applicants.
9. As regards the sentence of the applicants, considering the above facts
and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Manjappa (supra), and also
considering the fact that the applicants have undergone jail sentence
for 21 days, they are facing the lis since August, 2013 i.e. for more than
12 years, and also considering the age of the applicants and there are
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 i.e. 21 days. Further, both the above
sentences imposed on applicants are directed to run concurrently.
10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the
applicants under the aforementioned Sections are affirmed and they
are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The fine
sentence is affirmed.
11. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail
bond 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
Prakash
