Partly allowed
Hiran v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
Chhattisgarh HCCRR/599/2004
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.…
What the court decided
AI extract
CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 599 of 2004 Judgment reserved on: 25.01.2017 Judgment delivered on 08 .02.2017
Hiran S/o. Bhudhau, Aged about 50 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Village Sidhama, P. S. Dhaurpur, District Surguja (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station- Dhaurpur, District Surguja (C.G.)
| ---- Respondent | |
|---|---|
| For Applicant |
:- Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Advocate |
| For Respondent/ State | :- Mr. Suryakant Mishra, Panel Lawyer |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Shukla C.A. V. Order
2
4 . Being aggrieved by the judgment of trial Court, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 166/2004 before the
3
Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur. By the judgment dated 24.11.2004, the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal of the applicant and modified the judgment of the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above in the first paragraph of this order.
5 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments, statements of the witnesses and other documents relevant to the present case.
6 . Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to argue the case on merit and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that the incident is of the year 2002 and since then about 15 years have passed. At the time of incident, the applicant was aged about 50 years and now he is 65 years old. Out of the jail sentence of 2 years R.I. awarded to him, he has already undergone nearly 2 months and 15 days and has deposited fine amount of Rs. 1000/- imposed upon him. Learned counsel further argued that the dispute arose at the time of a dance programme in the village. Learned counsel also argued that the complainant sustained injuries only on his hand and not on the vital parts of the body. He further submitted that sentence of fine amount awarded to the applicant by the Appellate Court may be enhanced and the jail sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
4
7 . On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment though not disputed the above facts.
8 . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the above submissions that the incident had happened on 16.02.2002 and about 15 years have passed since then and that at present the applicant is 65 years old, I do not feel it appropriate to send the applicant back to jail. I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction of the applicant under Section 326 IPC, the jail sentence awarded to him is restricted to the period already undergone by him besides imposing/ enhancing the amount of fine.
9 . In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction awarded to the applicant under Section 326 IPC is upheld. However, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. So far as the sentence of fine is concerned, the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 3000/- and the applicant is granted 2 months' time to deposit the same, failing which, he shall be liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. The amount of Rs. 1250/- already deposited by the applicant towards fine shall be adjusted in the amount of fine enhanced by this Court today.
5
10 . It is reported that the applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and shall remain operative for a further period of six months in view of the provisions contained under section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
Sd/( Anil Kumar Shukla) Judge
santosh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petition against the conviction and sentence under Section 326 IPC deserves to be allowed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Hiran
State of Chhattisgarh
Anil Kumar Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court