•m' li ; ! li.i .i-tt^iUj. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR cAninal Revisioa No. 106/2006 APPLICANT Sadhuram S/o Shri Phool Siugh Sahu (la -tail) , agcd about 44 years, resident of VflDlage-Hardi, Thana-M^arIod, Dist, Dhamatan(C.G.j. - VERSUS RESPONDEKT State of Chhatdsgarh Through District Magistrate Dhamatari (C.G.). CRIMINAL REVISION UNDERSECflON 397 AND 401 OF THE CRIMINAL PRP^SDURE CO]^,J,9'73. ' ' (SB :Ho&'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri S.C. Verma, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Shri RakeshJha, Dy. G.A. for theState/respondent. OF8AL- ORDER (Passedon 23/03/2010) *^. • '-^. 1. By this criminal revision petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of thejudgment dated 6/2/2Q06 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamatari in criminal appeal No, 74/05 affimaing the judgment of convictioh and order of sentence dated 14/2/05 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamatari in criinina] case N0. 249/2001 whereby and where under Judicial Magistrate Pirst Class, Dhamatari after convicting the petitioner under Sections 294 and 324 of the Jndian Penal Code and sentenced fine of Rs. 300/- and rigorous imprisoninent for 6 months. 2. CQnviction is impugned on the ground that without any legality and propriety Court below has convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforementioned, 3. Leamed counsel for the parties are heard. \ . 4. Judgment impugned and record of the Court below perused. 5. During the course of arguinent leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of the evidence of prosecution he is not disputing theconviction but praying for lenient view. ' ^ », ./''•' 6. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the present case after dismissal of the appeal dated 6/2/06 sentence of petitioner was suspended vide 7. £-- order dated 7/3/06 and he has been released after some days therefore he was in custody for more than one m&nth. Considering fhe nature of dispute and the fact that complainant and accused are brother and on account of property dispute the offence has been committed. On the other hand, leamed co'fansel for the State/respondent opposed the revision. 8. Considering the concurrent finding.pf fact of two Courts below, I am not ^f: inclined to disturb the conviction of tliepetitioner, however the evidence ofPWl Abhyarain complainant clearly reveal that the offence took place on account of property dispute and petitioner assaulted him by Rapa which he was holding for dismantling the wall. In these circumstances again sending the petitioner would not serve any purpose and by miposing the fine petitioner may be adequately punished. Consequently, this criminal revision is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby maintained. Conviction of petitioner under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is also inaintained buf in stead of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months he is sentenced to rigorous. imprisonment for period already undergone (about more than one month) and fine of Rs, 1,000/- in default additional rigorous impnsonment for 2 months. Petifioner is directed to deposit the fine before the Court below within 1 month from today. Sd/- TP.SharmS Judge •^.