Sahdev vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This revision has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 21.10.2010 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 53/2010, arising out of judgment and conviction dated 23.01.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali (hereinafter referred to as 'JMFC'), District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 666/2008.

According to the case of prosecution, on 26.10.2008, at about 8:30 AM, when Smt. Narsingh Bai was doing housework, at that time, her friend namely Tapaswani came there and demanded Datun from her, then she said 'Societywala Ledga Teli' is not giving rice, at that time one Mahadev reached there and told Narsingh Bai that why you abusing my brother as 'Societywala Ledga Teli', and assaulted her by stone, due to that she sustained injuries on her hand. Meanwhile, Manbodh, brother-in-law of the prosecutrix also reached there and tried to intervene but, he was also assaulted by the applicant with stick due to that he also sustained injuries. The matter was reported by the complainant. On the basis of said report, offence has been registered against the applicant.

After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed before the learned JMFC. Learned JMFC vide its judgment dated 23.01.2010, convicted the applicant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced him rigorous imprisonment of 2 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation. Against the said judgment of learned JMFC, a criminal appeal has been preferred by the applicant/accused. Vide impugned judgment dated 21.10.2010, the Appellate Court affirmed the conviction, however, reduced the jail sentence from 2 years to 1 month and increased the fine amount from Rs. 500/- to 2000/-. Hence, this revision.

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 about 10 days in jail. He has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since 2008 i.e. for about 14 years. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

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 available with utmost circumspection.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the applicant is facing the lis since 2008 and there is no criminal antecedents 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 and the fine sentence should be enhanced.

Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under Section 325 of the IPC is affirmed and against the conviction he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine sentence for the above offence is increased from Rs. 2,000/- to 6,000/- which shall be payable within three months from the date of receipt of this order. In default of payment of the fine amount, the applicant shall be liable to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.