Partly allowed¶32

Santosh Kumar Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Dec 2025CRR/1114/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; CRR No. 1114 of 2016; decided 10/12/2025 by Radhakishan Agrawal, J.; criminal revision — conviction under Sections 294 IPC and 323/34 IPC affirmed; jail sentence reduced to period already undergone (7 days) owing to ~15-year pendency since 2010 and no criminal antecedents; sentences concurrent; fine retained; bail bonds in force six months under Section 481 B.N.S.S.; revision partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed in part: conviction of the applicants under the aforesaid sections affirmed; jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone, the jail sentences to run concurrently; fine sentence retained; bail bonds to remain in force for six months as per Section 481 of the B.N.S.S. ¶32

Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the applicants recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the first appellate Court was justified. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Both the trial Court and the appellate Court were justified in convicting the applicants on the strength of the injured eyewitnesses (P.Ws.1-3) supported by medical evidence (P.W.6); the conviction is affirmed.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

While upholding the conviction, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the jail sentence awarded to the applicants to the period already undergone, considering that they remained in jail for 7 days, have been facing the lis since 2010 (about 15 years) and have no criminal antecedents.

¶29

Key takeaways

The jail sentences undergone by the applicants shall run concurrently and the fine sentence shall remain intact.ratio¶31
Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 481 of the B.N.S.S.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the appellate Court's judgment dated 30.11.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.61/2015 (1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti), upholding the applicants' conviction under Sections 294 IPC and 323/34 IPC (three counts) with R.I. and fines — Held: conviction affirmed, the statements of the injured witnesses (P.Ws.1-3) being supported by the medical evidence of P.W.6 Dr. P. Singh; however, since the applicants had undergone only 7 days of imprisonment, had been facing the lis for about 15 years since the 2010 incident, and had no criminal antecedents, the jail sentence was reduced to the period already undergone; sentences to run concurrently; fine sentence left intact; bail bonds directed to remain in force for six months as per Section 481 of the B.N.S.S. Revision allowed in part.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 1114 of 2016

¶5

1 - Santosh Kumar Gupta S/o Gopal Ram Gupta Aged About 43 Years

¶6

2 - Dinesh Kumar Gupta S/o Chintamani Aged About 46 Years

¶7

3 - Rajendra Gupta S/o Gopal Ram Aged About 40 Years

¶8

All R/o Village Baradwar Basti Police Station - Baradwar District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants

¶9

Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2025.12.11 17:45:49 +0530

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate - Janjgir, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant

¶12

For Applicants : Shri Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Sachidanand Yadav, P.L.

¶13

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

Order on Board

10/12/2025

Heard.

The present revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.61/2015 by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (CG) whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment dated 16.02.2015 passed in Criminal Case No.121/2011 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti, Dist. Jangir-Champa (CG) whereby, the trial Court, while acquitting them under Section 506 Part-II of IPC, convicted and sentenced the applicants as under :-

¶18

¶19

Conviction	Sentence
294 IPC	To pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to pay fine, further R.I. for one month each.
323/34 IPC (three counts)	R.I. for 6 months (three counts) with fine of Rs.500 – 500/- each, totalling Rs.1,500/- and in default thereof, further R.I. for one month each (three counts)
All the sentences are d	irected to run concurrently.

¶20

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.12.2010 at 8:00 pm a dispute arose between the complainant – Pawan Gupta and the applicants/accused persons on account of previous enmity and for asking them to keep quiet, upon which, the applicants/accused persons abused him and threatened to kill him. Accused – Santosh assaulted Pawan and caused injury, accused Rajendra assaulted Ashok with bamboo stick whereas accused Santosh and Dinesh assaulted Pramod with hands and fists. The incident was reported by the complainant himself on 31.12.2010 in Police Station Baradwar and based on such report, F.I.R. (Ex.P.1) has been registered against them and that all the three injured persons have been sent for medical examination. During investigation, statements of witnesses have been recorded.

¶21

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti, Dist. Janjgir-Champa. The applicants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence.

¶22

Learned Court of J.M.F.C. as well as the appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded the finding of conviction and sentence as mentioned in para 1. Hence, this revision.

¶23

Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicants but is challenging the finding

¶24

¶25

of sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and that, they are facing the lis since 2010, i.e., for about 15 years. The applicants remained in jail from 30.11.2016 to 06.12.2016 and thus they have incarcerated the jail sentence for 7 days and they may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. He further submits that the fine amount has already been deposited in the concerned Court.

¶26

On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision while supporting the impugned judgment

¶27

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

¶28

Considering the statement of the complainant/victim – Pawan Kumar Gupta (P.W.1), Ashok Gupta (P.W.2) and Pramod Gupta (P.W.3) which was supported by the medical evidence of P.W.6 Dr. P. Singh and further considering the other evidence and material documents available on record, I am of the view that both the Trial Court as well as appellate Court were justified in convicting the applicant as such and I hereby affirm the same.

¶29

As regards jail sentence of the applicants, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the applicants remained in jail for a period of 7 days and they are facing the lis since 2010, i.e., for about 15 years and there are no criminal antecedents against them, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction of the applicants recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the jail sentences undergone by

¶30

¶31

them shall run concurrently. The fine sentence shall remain in tact.

¶32

Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicants under the aforesaid sections is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 481 of the B.N.S.S.

¶33

Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶34

Anjani

Santosh Kumar Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Gupta 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Geeta Bai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and another

Ajay @ Papu Rawat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs Mathura Prasad Kashayap

Rajesh Dhody Vs v.k.mukharjee

Pramod Kumar Gupta Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. Vs Rajendra Prasad Pandey