Deepak Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

1. This present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 09.12.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2016 arising out of the Judgment dated 14.09.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 02 of 2012. By the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the applicant by confirming the conviction under Section 323 of the

¶17

2 / 4

¶18

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Two Counts), while modifying the sentence from simple imprisonment for three months to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, with a default sentence of imprisonment for 15 days each. The sentence imposed under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC was affirmed by the Appellate Court i.e. RI for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, Simple Imprisonment for 30 days.

¶19

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.12.2011 at about 06:30 pm, the complainant namely Sanjay Kumari went to her courtyard for collecting Kanda , at that time, the present applicant came there along with his father namely Sohan Sahu and started abusing with filthy language and assaulted her by Laathi , as a result of which, the complainant sustained injuries over her body. Thereafter, the complainant PW-3 Sanjay Kumari reported the matter to the Police Station: Champa, District : Janjgir (C.G.) pursuant to which, FIR (Ex.P/4) was registered against the applicant. Injured/victim was sent to medical examination where PW-8 Dr. Manish Shrivastava, examined the victim and found injuries over his body and gave his MLC report vide Ex. P/7, P/8 and P/9 and X-ray report vide Ex.P/10 and P/11.

¶20

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, District: Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶21

4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicant under Sections 323 (Two Counts) and 325 read with 34 of IPC. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 09.12.2016, partly allowed the appeal and altered the sentence part as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this revision.

¶22

3 / 4

¶23

5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him is on higher side. He further submits that during trial the applicant has remained in jail for 12 days i.e. from 09.12.2016 to 20.12.2016, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since December 2011. He further submits that the applicant was a young boy of 19 years at the time of incident and the fine amount has already been deposited, therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

8. Considering the statements of complainant PW-3 Sanjay Kumari supported by the statement of her father PW-4 Nanku Kewat and her mother PW-5 Milbai, coupled with the medical evidence of PW-8 Dr. Manish Shrivastava 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.

¶27

9. Further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone about 12 days, he is facing the lis since December 2011 i.e. for more than 13 years 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.

¶28

4 / 4

¶29

10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned sections are 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 481 of B.N.S.S.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

( Radhakishan Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶33

Saurabh

Deepak Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Sahu 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

Parmanand Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Karamchand Pashwan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bikul Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Atwaro

Gulsher Khan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sumitra Singh Vs Anul Khan