Nafr High Court · 2019
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:44747 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 198 of 2020 Priya Agrawal D/o Kailash Chand Agrawal Aged About 33 Years R/o, Bilaspur Chauk, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Applicant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through In-Charge Of Police Station, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramesh Agrawal S/o Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, P.S. Gandhinagar, P.O., Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Applicant (s)
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. K.K. Baharani, Panel Lawyer For Resp No.2 : Mr. CJK Rao, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge 02 /09/2025 Order On Board 1. This revision is filed against judgment dated 14th November 2019 passed by learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur District- Sarguja in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2019 whereby learned appellate Court while maintaining conviction of respondent No.2 for alleged commission of offence under Section 323 of IPC has modified Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.09.06 10:43:19 +0530 -2- the sentence awarded to him. Appellate Court, instead of jail sentence of SI for 6 months has imposed jail sentence till rising of the Court and enhanced fine amount of Rs.100/- to Rs.1,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for applicant would submit that learned appellate Court has not considered the discussions made by learned trial Court while awarding sentence of 6 months SI and fine of Rs.100/- whereby learned trial Court has considered that respondent No.2/accused was involved in some other criminal cases also. She further submits that applicant had gone to attend the Court proceedings filed against respondent No.2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before Family Court Ambikapur along with her mother and uncle and during recess time when they went outside the Court premise to take some fruit juice, respondent No.2 threatened applicant, hurled filthy language saying that if she will not take the case back, he will kill her. He also assaulted appellant/complainant with hands and fists and snatched her gold chain. Due to assault, appellant/complainant suffered injuries on her left ear, over left wrist, face and neck. She submits that in the facts of case, looking to nature of allegation and other criminal case registered against respondent No.2, learned appellate Court ought not to have reduced the jail sentence awarded by learned trial Court till rising of the Court and enhancing fine amount from Rs.100/- to Rs.1000/-. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/State supports the impugned judgment. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that learned -3- Appellate Court has not set aside the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court, however, modified the sentence looking to circumstances as projected before it. He submits that looking to nature of injury suffered by complainant/applicant, there is no proof of conviction of respondent No.2 for the offence which he allegedly committed in past, period of facing criminal case, nature of offence, learned first appellate Court modified the sentence awarded to respondent No.2/accused. Hence, there is no error or infirmity in the judgment passed by learned appellate Court by modifying the sentence awarded by learned trial Court. 5. To appreciate submissions of learned counsel for respective parties I have perused records of trial Court. 6. Undisputedly, appellant/complainant is wife of respondent No.2. Their marriage was solemnized on 23.01.2007. After some time of marriage, appellant/complainant was harassed and also assaulted by her husband (respondent No.2) along with his family members which led to registration of criminal case against respondent No.2 and his family members under Section 498-A of IPC. Application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is also filed by appellant/complainant against her husband (respondent No.2). Allegation levelled against respondent No. 2 as appearing from evidence of appellant/complainant PW1 is that on 20.03.2012 when she went to attend the Court proceedings before Family Court Ambikapur along with other family members, respondent No.2/accused threatened her to take the case back and also assaulted her due to which she suffered injuries on her neck, ear, wrist and blood -4- was oozing out. 7. Under provision of Section 323 of IPC, punishment provided is of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 8. Afore referred provision provides for jail sentence up to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. Learned trial Court has inflicted punishment of jail sentence of SI for 6 months and fine of Rs.100/- . 9. Learned first Appellate Court while hearing the appeal filed by respondent No.2/accused against his conviction by trial Court, considered the entire facts of the case, evidence of prosecution witnesses and recorded a finding that only on the basis of registration of other criminal cases against respondent No.2 it cannot be concluded that respondent No.2 is a habitual offender. Learned appellant Court also recorded a finding that no evidence has been produced before the Court from which it can be inferred that appellant (respondent No.2) has ever been convicted under any of the offence allegedly committed by him in past and he is continuously appearing before the Court without any fail. Learned Appellant Court considering entire aspects of the case, reduced the sentence awarded by learned trial Court and while setting aside sentence of imprisonment of 6 months SI, has enhanced fine amount of Rs.100/- to Rs.1,000/-. 10.During the course of hearing before this Court, learned counsel -5- appearing for respondent No.2 (accused) also brought to knowledge of this Court that respondent No.2 is suffering from cancer. 11.In the aforementioned facts of case, view taken by learned Appellate Court in modifying jail sentence awarded by learned trial Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be said to be erroneous or suffering from any infirmity or patent illegality . 12.For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision. Revision is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen