1 2025:CGHC:15354 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 515 of 2008 • Yashwant @ Ashwan, S.o Thandaram Satnami, Aged about 20 years, R/o Village-Khaira, P.S. and Tahsil Bilaigarh, District-Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • The State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bilaigarh, District- Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 01/04/2025 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.04.2008 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District-Raipur (C.G.) in Session Case No. 19/2007 whereby the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.04.02 17:02:46 +0530 2 U/s 363 of IPC R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 03 months. U/s 366 of the IPC R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs.4000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 06 months. (Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently) 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 376, 363 and 366 of the IPC, alleging that on 22.08.2007 the appellant/accused allured the victim, took her along with him and after giving false assurance of marriage committed sexual intercourse with her. On the basis of complaint, FIR was lodged against the appellant and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the victim has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case and has examined 03 witnesses and exhibited 04 documents in his defence. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.04.2008, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC considering the fact that the victim was a consenting party and she was more than 16 years of age but less than 18 years of age at the time of the incident. However, the appellant has been 3 convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 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 submits that the appellant is now aged about more than 37 years of age and has family responsibilities and the appellant has no previous criminal record and he has already remained in jail for about 08 months 28 days. The incident took place in the year 2007 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. This appeal is pending since 2008. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant 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 and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Prosecutris (PW-1), Balram Soni (PW-2), Shiv Prasad Soni (PW-4), Daya Ram Barman (PW-7), Tarachand Ratode (PW-8), Dr. Neela Kumhare (PW-9), establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC which is based on the material available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 4 9. As regards the sentence part, the incident had taken place in the year 2007 i.e. about 17 years ago and now he must be aged about more than 37 years having family responsibility. The appellant is facing the lis since 2008 and he has no previous criminal record and has already remained in jail for about 08 months 28 days. Taking into consideration all these facts and also considering the fact that the appellant has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, it would not be appropriate to send back the appellant to jail and the ends of justice would serve if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC is maintained. However, the sentence of R.I. for 07-07 years for the offences under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 08 months 28 days. However, the fine amount imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. The appellant is on bail. He need not 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. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.