NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 719 of 2008

1.Ravi Pratap Sahi, S/o Shri R.R. Sahi, aged about 27 years, 2.D. Bal Venkat S/o Late D. Bal Kanhaiya, aged about 26 years, Both are R/o Balco Nagar, Sada Colony, Padhimar, Police Station – Balco, Tahsil, District Korba (C.G.)

---- Applicants Versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Balco Nagar, District Korba (C.G.).

---- Respondent For Applicants : Shri Vivek Sharma and Shri K.K. Dewangan, Advocates For Respondent/State : Shri Himanshu Sharma, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board

17 /06/2022

1. Challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction dated 25/10/2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 12/2008 arising out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28/04/2008 in Criminal Case No. 909/2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba (C.G.). The applicants are preferred this revision under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’).

2. Applicants were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class vide its order dated 28/04/2008 for an offence punishable under under Section 323, Section 325/34 of I.P.C. and awarded sentence R.I. for six months and fine of Rs.500/- to each applicants and in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 15 days. Learned Magistrate did not pass any sentence for the conviction under Section 323 separately because the applicants were already convicted and sentenced under Section 325 which is punishable with higher punishment.

3. The case of the prosecution is this that on the date of incident the complainant Bhagwat was sitting with his friend Suresh in Autoriksha at the bus stand. At that point the applicant No. 1 along with others came and asked the name of the complainant, when the complainant did not tell his name the applicants started abusing the complainant snatching and started beating the complainant with hand and fist and thrown him on the floor. The complainant suffered injuries on his hand, ear and ribs. The complainant was treated in Balco Hospital. Complainant made a report in Police Station Balco. The medical examination of the complainant was done and thereafter due investigation charge-sheet was filed. The applicants were charged under Sections 294, 323, 325, 506 (B)/34 of IPC and thereafter the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class after due examination of the witness and on completion of trial convicted the applicants as stated above.

4. The applicants filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Korba against the judgment of conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba. The appeal filed by the applicants is also rejected and the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded was upheld.

5. Counsel for the applicants submits that they are not pressing the present revision on merits, however, he made a submission that looking to the nature of offence, sentence awarded and pendency of the cases for long time, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the sentence the applicants have already undergone as applicants have already served/undergone more than 10 days of sentence imposed.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that looking to the injury suffered by the victim/complainant leniency should not be shown to the applicants herein.

7. Counsel for the applicants did not press this revision on merits of the case, however, this Court has meticulously perused the impugned judgments and the evidence on record. Both the Courts below after due appreciation of evidence came to a conclusion that the applicants have committed above stated offence and therefore they were awarded the sentence as stated above. I do not find any jurisdictional illegality or irregularity in both the judgments of the Courts below on the basis of evidence available on record, therefore, the finding recorded by the Courts below are hereby confirmed.

8. S