Chandrika Aghariya vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, J

This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 31.08.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.22/2015, affirming the judgment dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.2124/2007, whereby the learned JMFC, Dabhra has convicted the applicant for offence under Sections 294 (two counts) and 324 (three counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for one-one month and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one day (two times) under Section 294 of IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default fo payment of fine to further undergo SI for five days (three times) under Section 324 of IPC, further directed to run both the sentenced concurrently.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that there is allegation against the applicant that on 13.03.2002 at about 1.00 p.m. at village Chhuchhubhata he abused, Sonamati and Chandrika and assaulted Sonamati, Bashidhar and Rooplal by axe and also threatened them to kill. The medical examination of the injured was conducted applicant was arrested and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned J.M.F.C. Dabhra for the charges under Section 294, 324 and 506 of the I.P.C. and the applicant was also examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of trial, the trial Court has acquitted the applicant from charges under section 506-B of the I.P.C., but convicted and sentenced the applciant for the offence under Sections 294 and 324 of IPC. Later on the appellate Court has also affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court. Hence this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the judgment of the trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the applicant and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. Both the trial Court as well as appellate Court have failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the complainant. Alternatively, he submits that the trial Court has awarded the sentence of SI for one-one month and fine of Rs.100/- under Section 294 of IPC (two times) and SI for one year and fine of Rs.500/-under Section 324 of IPC (three times) to the applicant. Considering the age of the applicant as applicant at present is aged about 43 years and as he has faced criminal trial since 2002, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant has already undergone 02 months and 10 days of jail sentence as the appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.2124/2007 and bail was granted to him by this Court only on 28.10.2015. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State, submits that both the trial Court and the appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant for offence under Sections 294 and 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for one-one months and fine of Rs.100/- under Section 294 of IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for one year and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 324 of IPC. In appeal preferred by the applicant, the appellate Court has maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicant. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting and sentencing the applicant and affirming the conviction of the applicant for offence under Sections 294 and 324 of the IPC.

Now considering the question of sentence. As the criminal trial commenced on 26.04.2002 which continued till 28.11.2014 and though the appeal also continued for about 8 months and this revision petition was pending since 15.09.2015 and as such from the date of commencement of trial, more than 21 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone 02 months and 10 days of jail sentence as the appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.2124/2007 and bail was granted to him by this Court only on 28.10.2015, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant again in jail as he has already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from SI for one year under Section 324 of the IPC to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 02 months and 10 days of jail sentence, however fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.3,000/- under Section 324 of the IPC. Enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the applicant within a period of one month from today before the concerned trial Court and the same shall be paid to Children Observation Home, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).

Fine, if any, deposited by the applicant earlier shall be adjusted. If the enhanced fine amount is not deposited by the applicant within the stipulated time, he shall further undergo as has been ordered by the trial Court. Ordered accordingly.

The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.