Chhedi Lal Satnami and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 . As per PUD dated 23.12.2023 sent by Office of CJM District Janjgir Champa, applicant No.2 Raja Ram Satnami has died on 12.09.2020. Accordingly, this revision petition stands abated on account of demise of applicant No.2.

¶15

2 . The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 26.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District : Janjgir - Champa

¶16

2 / 4

¶17

Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2011 arising out of order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Janjgir (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.135 of 2011 convicting the applicant under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC and sentencing him to R.I for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine S.I for 3 months and to further undergo R.I. for 2 years, and fine amount of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for 3 months making it clear that all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Thus, both the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence and have recorded finding of conviction while acquitting him of the charge under Section 294 IPC.

¶18

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.12.2010 at about 7:00 p.m. the complainant Hemant Kumar was warming himself near his house by the fire, at that time applicant came there and abused him in filthy language and assaulted him and his father and others with lathi. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under the aforesaid sections were registered against the applicant. The injured persons were medically examined. During investigation statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

4 . After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir, (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty. 5 . Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that she does not want to press this revision on merits and confines her argument on sentence part only, which is on higher side. She further submits that the applicant and complainant are residing in same locality and suddenly dispute arose between them. She further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 5 days i.e. from 26.05.2012 to 30.05.2012, he has no criminal

¶20

3 / 4

¶21

antecedents and he is facing the li s since December, 2012, i.e. for almost 13 years. She also submits that the fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶22

7 . On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

¶23

9 . Considering the statements of injured PW-1 Hemant Kumar, PW-2 Jyoti Bai PW-3 Gendram & PW- 4 Pusai Bai coupled with the medical evidence given by PW-6, Dr. Mamta Jagat, & PW- 7 Sandeep Kumar Pathak and other evidence available on record, this Court is of 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 a correct finding of fact. Therefore, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant.

¶24

10. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and 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 applicant has remained in jail for 5 days i.e. 26.05.2012 to 30.05.2012, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the li s since December, 2012, i.e. for almost 13 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.

¶25

11 . 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, however, with a direction to run the

¶26

4 / 4

¶27

sentences concurrently. Fine sentences awarded under the aforesaid sections shall remain intact.

¶28

12. 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.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Radhakishan Agrawal)

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Vaibhav

Chhedi Lal Satnami and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhedi Lal Satnami and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kiroti Nayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rameshwar Mishra Vs State Of C.g.

Tamradhwaj Jaiswal Vs Shiv Prasad Rohidas

Bharatlal Dhimar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dwarika Patel