Dashrath vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Radhakishan Agrawal, J

The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 03.08.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2010 arising out of order dated 18.10.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.250 of 2005 whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by affirming the order of conviction and sentence as under:

Conviction

Sentence

U/s 354 of the Indian Penal Code,

R.I.  for  six  months  and  fine  of

1860 (in short ‘the IPC’)

Rs.1,000/-, in default, two months R.I.

U/s 323 of the IPC

Fine  of  Rs.1,000/-,  in  default,  two

months R.I.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.04.2005, when the complainant (PW-4) had gone to her agricultural field to cut grass, at that time the applicant came there with ill intention and tried to caught hold her hand for committing bad thing with her. When the complainant tried to stop him, the applicant got angry and assaulted her with hand, fists and club (lathi). When she screamed, her husband, her brother-in-law (jeth) came at the spot and upon seeing them, the applicant ran away from the spot. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police station Kawardha and FIR (Ex.P-4) was lodged and statements of the witnesses were recorded.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court under Sections 354, 323 and 506-B of the IPC. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

Learned Trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence vide order dated 18.10.2010 acquitted the applicant from the charge under Section 506-B of the IPC and convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment against which appeal was preferred by the applicant and the same was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 03.08.2011. Hence, this revision.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this revision on merits and confines his argument on sentence part only. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 08 days i.e. from 03.08.2011 to 10.08.2011, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since April, 2005, i.e. for more than 19 years. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. He further submits that fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant.

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

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

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of complainant (PW-4), supported with the statement of other prosecution witnesses 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.

With regard to the sentence of the applicant, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone about total 8 days i.e. from 03.08.2011 to 10.08.2011, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since April, 2005, i.e. for more than 19 years, 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.

Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed.

Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.