1 2025:CGHC:8720 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 778 of 2007 Sukhdev Manikpuri, S/o Shivadas Manikpuri, aged about 21 years, R/o Kududand P.S. Civil Line, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Ayachi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 19/02/2025 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.07.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.92/2007 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 366/511 of IPC RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, 3 months additional RI. Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.02.20 18:08:48 +0530 2 U/s 354 of IPC RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, 3 months additional RI. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently 2. As per the prosecution story, The complainant Smt. Shweta Dubey (PW-8), resides near Gayatri Mandir, Kuwadand, Bilaspur, and works at Kesharwani Enterprises, Gurunanak Chowk, Torwa. As usual, on 09-01-07, at around 9:00 AM, she was going to work on her bicycle when the appellant, Sukhdev, a boy from her neighborhood, started riding his vehicle alongside her bicycle with the intent of outraging her modesty. He kept telling her to leave her bicycle there and sit on his vehicle to go with him. The complainant remained silent and continued riding her bicycle. When she reached near Luthra Clinic in Sadar Bazaar, the appellant kicked her bicycle, causing her to get down. He then grabbed her hand and tried to pull her, saying that she was not listening to him. When she freed her hand, the appellant grabbed her stole (odhani) and started pulling it. Frightened, the complainant screamed for help, which prompted nearby people to rush to her aid. They began to assault the appellant, who then fled the scene, leaving behind his Hero Honda motorcycle. The local shopkeepers brought the complainant and the appellant’s motorcycle to the police station. Based on the complainant’s report, a First Information Report was registered against the appellant. A site map (Ex.P-10) was prepared in the presence of witnesses based on the complainant’s description. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. The appellant, Sukhdev, was arrested through an arrest memo (Ex.P-2). Upon being produced by the complainant, her mark sheet was seized in the presence of witnesses vide Ex.P-3. After completing the 3 investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3. So as to hold the Appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents. The statement of the Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, two defence witnesses were examined by him in his defence. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.07.2007, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He also submits that the appellant is currently aged about 39 years, he has already remained in jail for about 9 months 7 days. The incident took place in January, 2007 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. The appeal is pending since 2007. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence of the appellant of the above offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of complainant Shweta Dubey (PW-8) and eye- witnesses Mohan Bhojwani (PW-1) & Ratanlal Rajak (PW3), 4 establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 366/511 & 354 of IPC. 9. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in Janurary, 2007 more than 18 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant is aged about 39 years at present, he has already remained in jail for about 9 months 7 days and he is facing the lis since 2007, in the interest of justice, in considered opinion of this Court, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant from R.I. for 5 years and RI for 2 years to the period already undergone by him i.e. 9 months 7 days for the offence punishable under Sections 366/511 & 354 of IPC. However, the fine amount for the above offences shall remain intact. It is ordered accordingly. 10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11.The appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437- A of the CrPC. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Shubham