2024:CGHC:47503 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1041 of 2015

1. Manish Chandrakar S/o Rajkumar Chandrakar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Gataura, P.S. Masturi, Tahsil Bilaspur, Revenue and Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 2. Harish Kumar Chandrakar S/o Rajkumar Chandrakar, Aged About

27 Years, R/o Village Gataura, P.S. Masturi, Tahsil Bilaspur, Revenue and Civil District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Neelam Khan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

03.12.2024

1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated

28.11.2015 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 2014, whereby it has afÏrmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 613/2013, by which the revisionists have been convicted and sentenced for the offence as under:

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.10.2010, at about 7-8 PM, the applicants committed Marpit, with the victim/complainant by way of sword and belt in the name of demanding the retail money.The petitioners have denied the allegation against them, and they have not examined any witnesses for their defense. On the basis of material placed before learned trial Court has found the applicants are guilty in under Section 324/34, 326/34 of Indian Penal Code and awarded the sentences R.I. for 3 months, and fine amount of Rs. 500/- in default of which additional S.I. for 15 days each applicants for under Section 324/34 of Indian Penal Code and awarded the sentences R.I. for 6 months and fine amount of Rs.

500/- in default of which additional S.I. for 15 days each applicants.

3. Being aggrieved by the judgement of conviction and sentenced passed by the learned trial Court the present applicants have preferred the instant criminal appeal before learned 3^rd Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur, District: Bilaspur (C.G.). The learned appellate Court has without properly appreciating the evidence and without looking the law passed the impugned judgement dated 28.11.2015, whereby the learned appellate Court, has dismissed the appeal of the applicants and maintain the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2014, passed by the Learned trial Court.

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants do not challenge their conviction, learned counsel only emphasized that the sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicants have already undergone about 10 days of jail sentence. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. She further submits that the fine amount has already been deposited.

5. 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.

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

7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned trial Court after conside