1 2025:CGHC:13088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 788 of 20 07 • Karim Khan S/o Suleman Khan aged about 22 years, R/o Ward No. 2 Ambagarh Chowki, Police Station – Ambagarh Chowki, District – Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District – Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 19 / 03 /202 5 1 Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 14.02.2025, the appellant is present in person before this Court. His presence be marked. 2 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2007 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 37/2007 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.03.21 10:38:12 +0530 2 appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 376 r/w Section 511 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 2 months. 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.02.2007, at about 11:00 pm, the complainant/victim lodged a report before Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, stating therein that the appellant came to her house at about 10:00 pm, and took her along with him near the quarter of forest department against her will. Further, it is alleged that on the verandah, the appellant downed her and tried to commit sexual intercourse with her forcibly. It is also alleged that the appellant left her after committing sexual assault and ran away. At that time, Dilip Yadav, Uncle of the prosecutrix came on the spot and tried to catch hold of the appellant but somehow he managed to run away. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was lodged and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 4 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 17 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. 5 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2007, learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-2 of this judgment. Hence, 3 the present appeal. 6 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2007, and thereby more than 17 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about 39 years and he has already remained in jail for about 11 months and 9 days, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Victim (PW-1), Devi Shankar (PW-4), Dr. Manisha Keshar (PW-6), Durga Shukla (PW-7), Rakesh Yadav (PW-8) and B.N. Maravi (PW-10), establishes 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 conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 r/w Section 511 of IPC. 10 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2007 about 17 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellant has no 4 criminal antecedent and he has already remained in jail for about 11 months and 9 days, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back the appellant to jail. Hence, appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 376 r/w Section 511 of IPC. However, the fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. The imposed/enhanced fine amount by this Court today shall be payable by the appellant, failing which the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 6 months. Fine, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted to the fine imposed/enhanced by this Court today. 12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13 Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 14 Record of the trial Court be sent along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu