CRR against conviction and sentence for assault with a sword. Applicant reduced jail term to period already undergone while upholding conviction and fine. Bail bond extended for six months.
Conviction affirmed; jail sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine affirmed; bail bond extended for six months.
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.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH YADAV YADAV Date: 2024.11.05 16:37:52 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 580 of 2012
Sundaru @ Sundar S/o Panchram Yadav, aged about 19 years R/o Kali Mandir Lingiyadih, P.S: Sarkanda, Tahsiil and District: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, District: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent _____________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board
05.11.2024
1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 25.07.2012 passed by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2012 whereby, the appeal of the applicant filed against the judgment dated 25.02.2012 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District: Bilaspur, in Criminal Case No. 41 of 2012 convicting and sentencing him as under:
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| Under Section 324 of IPC | RI for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine additional SI for 1 month. |
| Under Section 326 of IPC | RI for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional SI for 2 months. |
| Both the sentences we | re directed to run concurrently |
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Indra Bai lodged a report at Police Station: Sarkanda, stating that on 04.02.2009, due to previous enmity, the present applicant assaulted the complainant and her son with sword, due to which they sustained injuries over their hands and other parts of their body. Pursuant to which, FIR (Ex.P/9) was registered against the applicant. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide (Ex.P/10) and injured persons were sent to medical examination by PW-7 Dr. Vijay Kumar Mishra and gave his MLC reports vide Ex. P/5 and P/6 respectively. PW-8 Dr. S.K. Tiwari, Radiologist, conducted x-ray of the victimTeejram and gave his x-ray report vide Ex.P/8 in which fracture was also found in the left hand middle and index finger. One sword was seized from the possession of the applicant vide Ex-P-11.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District: Bilaspur (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.
4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the Para No. 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated
25.07.2012, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this revision on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant was young boy aged about 19 years at the time of incident, he has remained in jail for 87 days i.e. from 04.02.2009 to 17.02.2009 and 25.07.2012 to 05.10.2012, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since 2009, i.e. for more than 15 years and 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. 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.
6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely.
8. Considering the statements of PW-1 Indra Bai and PW-2 Teejram coupled with medical evidence of PW-7 Dr. Vijay Kumar Mishra who has proved the MLC reports vide Ex.P/5 and P/6 and PW-8 Dr. S.K. Tiwari who has proved the of X-ray report vide Ex.P/8 and other evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is
correct finding.
9. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjappa (Supra), and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone about 87 days, he is facing the lis since 2009 and the applicant was young boy aged about 19 years at the time of incident 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.
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. However, both the sentences shall run concurrently.
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.
Sd/- ( Radhakishan Agrawal )
JUDGE
Saurabh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the jail sentence awarded to a young first-time offender after a long pendency of the case should be commuted to the period already undergone.
Whether the fine imposed in the judgment can be maintained when it has already been deposited by the applicant.
Whether the conviction under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC should be upheld upon revision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manjappa vs. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶18
Manjappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 6 SCC 231 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sundaru @ Sundar S/o Panchram Yadav
State of Chhattisgarh
Radhakishan Agrawal
Saurabh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
