Order on Board

09.12.2024

1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated

07.11.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 64/2011 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), arising out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 262/2011, whereby, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:-

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that there is pond in the ancestral property of the complainant and accused party and the quarrel started regarding the fishing in the pond, whereby, the applicants along with one co-accused Bhushan Singh formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object of the said assembly assaulted Praveen Kumar and his father Rudrasharan on 05.08.2006, the FIR was lodged at Police Station concerned by Praveen Kumar on 08.08.2006 naming three accused persons namely Vijendra Singh, Nande Singh and Panna Singh under Sections 325, 34 of IPC. Further the statement under Section 161 of the CrPC was recorded spot map was prepared and the injured Praveen Singh and Rurdrasharan Singh were examined by the doctor, whereby the MLC report was prepared and after due investigation the charge-sheet was filed.

3. The learned trial Court on perusal of material available evidence on record found the applicants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the judged of trial Court, the applicants preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate Court has afÏrmed the decision of the trial Court. Hence, this application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to consider the material on record, and thus, the applicants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the paragraph 1 of this judgment, and itself is bad in law. Learned counsel emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant has already undergone about 6 days of jail sentence, and the fine amount has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need to interfere with the sentence.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and available records with utmost circumspection.

7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the paragraph 1 of this judgment, which has been afÏrmed by learned appellate Court. I am of the view that the appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity while afÏrming the conviction of the applicant for offence under Sections 147, 323 and 325 of the IPC.

Thus, the convictions are afÏrmed.

8. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicants are facing criminal trial since 2011 and thereafter more than 13 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the applicants at present and further considering that the app