1 2025:CGHC:14325 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 212 of 2008 • Dhani @ Rajendra Satnami S/o Pardesi Satnami, Aged about 24 years, R/o Pendarakapa, P.S. Mungeli, Distt.- Bilaspur, C.G. ... Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Mungeli, District- Bilaspur(C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 25/03/2025 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2008 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mungeli, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) in S.T. No. 06/2007 whereby the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.03.25 17:56:58 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 363 of IPC R.I. for 1.5 years with fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 01 months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.01.2007 at about 9:00 Am, when the victim had gone to guard the field. At that time, the appellant/accused came to her and proposed marriage. The victim refused, after which the accused took her to a hut in the field and committed rape. Thereafter, the accused/appellant took the victim away to Delhi without informing her parents and kept her in a hut on the first bypass road in Gurgaon and committed rape with her and threatened to beat her if she refused. On 10.01.2007, the appellant brought the victim back to Pendarakampa. Thereafter, on 11.01.2007, the victim filed a report of the incident in Sugli Police Station and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and offence was registered against the present appellant/accused U/s 363, 366 and 376 of IPC. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the victim has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 22 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 and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2008, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence 3 punishable under Section 366 and 376 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant 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 41 years of age and has family responsibilities and the appellant has no previous criminal record and he has already remained in jail for about 02 months 18 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 victim (PW-1), Hemdas Satnami (PW-4), Ved Kumar Sonkar (PW-8), Ku. Uma Dhruv (PW-10), Janak Das (PW-12), Rajshree Kosle (PW-13), 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 of IPC which is based on the material available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards the sentence part, the incident had taken place in 4 the year 2007 i.e. about 17 years ago and now he must be aged about more than 41 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 02 months 18 days. Taking into consideration all these facts, 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 Section 363 of IPC is maintained and the sentence of RI for 1.5 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 02 months 18 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. However, 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.