ROBIN LOGAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 6.5.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2004 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba arising out of the judgment dated 23.12.2003 passed in Criminal Case No.2039 of 2002 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba convicting the Petitioner/accused under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing with rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation. In appeal, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge has upheld the conviction imposed upon the Petitioner, but reduced the jail sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 2 months with affirmation of the fine sentence.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.4.1984 at about 8:30 a.m., Complainant Rajendra Singh along with his friend Paresh had gone to HSEL Club for watching a movie. While watching the movie, the Petitioner/accused asked Paresh to keep mum and threatened him that if he does not do so he will beat him. When the Complainant interfered, the Petitioner, abusing the Complainant and threatening him that he will tell him just now, went to his house. After sometime, when the Complainant and his friend Paresh were taking breakfast, one Ajay came to them and informed the Complainant that the Petitioner was abusing him. After sometime, when the Complainant and the Petitioner met, the Complainant asked the Petitioner about the reason of abusing him. The Petitioner, again abusing him, took out a knife from his pocket and assaulted him on the left elbow with the knife and thereafter fled from there. A report was lodged by the Complainant in Police Station Balco Nagar. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Petitioner/accused. After trial, the Judicial Magistrate First Class passed the judgment of conviction and sentence and in appeal, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction, but reduced the jail sentence as mentioned above. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred the instant revision.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that he does not press this revision on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that the matter is of the year 1984. The Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He is facing the lis for about 33 years. He further submits that the Petitioner is now working as a teacher in a private school and a compromise has already taken place between the parties. He further submits that the Petitioner, out of the total jail sentence of 2 months, has already undergone the period of about 15 days. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the Petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.