Order on Board

15.10.2024

1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated

05.07.2014 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 327/2014, arising out of the judgment and order dated 27.05.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda, District Raigarh in criminal case No. 229/2011, whereby the applicant was convicted under Sections 294 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay Rs. 300/- and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payments of fine further RI for 07 days and 15 days.

2. The prosecution's case is that the complaint, namely, Rajpal Sidar took a electric wire across the Khalihan of the accused Fagulal for his personal use. On the date of incident, the complaint was going to his in-law house with his wife and that time the accused Fagulal cut the electric wire by axe. It has been alleged that when the complaint stopped to cut the electric wire, the accused started abusing to the complaint and also assaulted with axe to the complaint. The complainant received simple injuries in body parts. The other persons saved to the complainant and the accused Fagulal ran away from the spot. On 05.05.2011 a report was lodged in the Police Station Tamnar by the complainant Rajpal Sidar regarding abusing and assaulting by the accused Fagulal. The FIR registered by the Police Station- Tamanr under the offence under section 294, 324 of the IPC and Crime No. 98/11 was registered against the accused person.

3. After completing the trial, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order on 27.05.2014, convicting the applicant under Sections 294 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay s. 300/- and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payments of fine further RI for 07 days and 15 days.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment dated 27.05.2014, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the learned First Additional Session Judge, Raigarh, which was dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide order dated 05.07.2014 in criminal appeal No.

327/14.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist does not challenge his conviction, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount, as the applicant has already undergone near about one month of jail sentence. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaydev Shrichand Danani v. State of Gujarat reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 616.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel, appearing for the non-

applicant/State would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need to interfere with the sentence.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of both the Courts and records with utmost circumspection.

8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the materials available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 294 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay s. 300/- and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payments of fine further RI for 07 days and 15 days. In an appeal preferred by the applicant/revisionist before the appellate Court which was dismissed by the learned appellate Court. Considering the materials available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the both the Courts have not committed any illegality or infirmity by convicting the applicant for offence punishable under Sections 294 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. Now considering the question of sentence as t