1 2025:CGHC:7865 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 651 of 2024 1 - Yashwant Satnami S/o Sukhnandan Satnami Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Navalpur, Police Station And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms.Itu Rani Mukherjee, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Prabha Sharma, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board 13/02/2025 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge FTC (POCSO), Bemetara, District Bemetara(CG) in Sessions Trial No. 19/2019 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the commission of offence as described below: 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 354 IPC RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months Under section 323 IPC To pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months Under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. Perused the concerned report received from the jail authorities. From perusal of the annexed document of the concerned jail authorities, it appears that the present appellant had served the entire sentence after availing benefit of remission and by depositing the entire fine amount before the trial Court, has been released. 3. As per case of the prosecution, report was lodged by the brother of the victim alleging that on 13.03.2019 when his sister had gone to fetch water from the solar pump, the appellant proposed her and when she refused him, he slapped her. She went from there crying to her house, the accused followed her and thereafter tied her hands with dupatta and pressed her breasts with an intention to outrage her modesty. She informed about the incident to her brother and FIR was lodged at police station Bemetara which was registered as Crime No. 115/2019. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and the entry of date of birth of the victim in the School Admission and Discharge register of the school was seized. Appellant was arrested after preparing arrest memo. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara and it was 3 committed for trial to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO Act) Bemetara, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323 IPC & Section 8 of the Protection of Children from sexual offences Act, 2012. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial Court by judgment impugned, has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the judgment. Hence the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Special Judge has erred in convicting the appellant. He submits that the findings are against the law, facts and evidence. He further submits that he had only proposed the victim and nothing has been done by the appellant but the learned trial court has failed to consider the same. He submits that the offence under Section 354 IPC is not attracted against the appellant as he has not committed any offence of such nature by attempting to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix and there is nothing on record on the basis of which he has been convicted. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has served the entire sentence. 7. On the other hand learned State Counsel submits that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court appears to be correct and no interference can be made in the appeal. 4 8. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, he has been convicted. Moreover, if the victim and the eyewitnesses wanted to falsely implicate the the appellant, the report would have been lodged by another person of the family or for some other offence. Why a person will involve in the aforesaid offence of pressing the breasts. From the circumstances of the case, this Court notice that the accused had made an attempt to outrage the modesty of the victim, pressed her breast. 9. Thus, in view of the foregoing reason, it can be inferred that the offence was committed by the appellant with an intention to outrage her modesty, therefore the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC against the accused clearly comes under the purview of Section 354 of IPC. However, knowing well of the fact that by the said act, he will outrage modesty of the woman, has used criminal force upon a lady. 10. On due consideration, after perusal of evidence adduced before the trial Court against the present appellant, considering the totality of the case, this Court is of the view that the trial Court had not committed any illegality or infirmity by convicting and sentencing the appellant. With this, the judgment of conviction and order of sentenced passed by the Court below in Special Sessions Trial No.19/2019 dated 14.02.2023 is hereby affirmed. 11. The appellant had already served the entire sentence and released on 30.01.2025 after availing benefit of remission and after depositing the fine amount before the trial Court. 5 12. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court immediately for compliance by the concerned authority. 13. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.03.21 11:37:56 +0530