NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 100 of 2012 Dinesh Kumar S/o Payari Lal Satnami, R/o Viil- Teh. And Ps Pallari, Distt.

Raipur, Now-Baloda Bazar C.G.

---- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Distt. Magisstrate Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G.

---- Non-applicant (Cause-title taken from Case Information)

For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

11.06.2024

1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda-Bazar (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 87/2011, arising out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.10.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Baloda Bazar in Criminal Case No. 11/09, convicting the revisionist under Sections 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo till the rising of the Court and ine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of ine amount additional simple imprisonment for 07 days and undergo S.I. for 01 month and ine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of ine amount additional simple imprisonment for 07 days (both the sentences have been directed to be run concurrently).

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.03.2008, when the victim was came back from her natural call, and when she reached to the courtyard of Pratap the present applicant came from the opposite direction and caught hand of the victim but when the victim said that she will tell all to incident to her husband and father-in-law the applicant left her hand, in the entire episode the bangles of the victim were crushed. On complaint of the victim before the SHO of police station Pallari the FIR has been registered under Sections 354 and 341 fo the IPC, against the applicant.

3. The learned trial Court after going through the material available on the record and considering the evidence, had pleased to convict the applicant under Sections 341 and 354 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo till the rising of the Court and ine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of ine amount additional simple imprisonment for 07 days and undergo S.I. for 01 month and ine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of ine amount additional simple imprisonment for 07 days (both the sentences have been directed to be run concurrently).

4. Being aggrieved whereby the revisionist had preferred an appeal before the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 25.01.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 87/2011 in a very mechanical and arbitrary manner.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant does not challenge his conviction, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modiied suitably by enhancing the ine amount as the applicant has already undergone 06 days of jail sentence. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suice to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the ine 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 Government Advocate, 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 the both the Courts and records of the trial Court 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 ofences punishable under Sections 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo till the rising of the Court and ine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of ine amount additional simple imprisonment for 07 days and undergo S.I.