Santosh @ Gudda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure arising out of the judgment dated 30.06.2011 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District: Bilaspur Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2011 whereby, the appeal of the applicant was dismissed which was filed

¶15

2 / 4

¶16

against the judgment dated 03.03.2011 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Marwahi, District: Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 122/2010. The Appellate Court, affirmed the conviction under Section 325 of IPC wherein the applicant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 3 months.

¶17

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.06.2010, at about 11:00 am, the applicant/accused abused the complainant and assaulted him with lathi because complainant has not returned the money of the applicant, which the complainant borrowed from him. On the basis of aforesaid, offence was registered against the applicant.

¶18

3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid Sections were filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Marwahi, (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded nonguilty.

¶19

4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence acquitted the accused under Section 294 & 506-II and convicted under Section 325 of IPC. The said judgment was challenged by the present applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 30.06.2011 convicted the accused/applicant under Section 325 of IPC and sentence him as mentioned in para 1. Hence, this revision.

¶20

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this revision on merits and confines his argument to the

¶21

3 / 4

¶22

sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant and complaint are brother in relation and they have amicably settled their dispute and that the applicant has remained in jail for 26 days i.e. from 30.06.2011 to 26.07.2011, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis 2010, i.e. for almost 14 years. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Fine amount has already deposited by the applicant before the trial Court. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 6 SCC 231.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

8. Considering the statements of injured PW-8 Kailash, supported by PW-5 Babu Lal, PW-2 Satyanarayan coupled with the evidence of PW-4 Dr. B.S. Paikra and MLC Report Ex.P2 and X-ray report Ex. P3 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.

¶26

9. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, 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 have undergone about 26 days, he is facing the lis since

¶27

4 / 4

¶28

2010 and there are 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.

¶29

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

¶30

11. 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.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

( Radhakishan Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶33

Vaibhav

Santosh @ Gudda v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh @ Gudda 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

Seema Pandey Vs Smt. Kusma Devi

Smt. Chohanti Tirki @ Chonhanti Tirki Vs Mohan Bargah

Smt. Suchita Bada Vs Mohan Bargah

Akhilesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sawla Kurre @Bita Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shrilal and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh