1 2025:CGHC:3474 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 141 of 2007 Naresh Kumar, S/o Rajkumar, aged about 23 years, Occupation- Cultivator, R/o Village Pinkapar, Tahsil-Lohara, P.S. Devri, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 20/01/2025 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.02.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.01.22 16:12:59 +0530 2 Scheduled Tribes) (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Durg, District – Durg (C.G.), in Special Case No.22/2006 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence & in Default U/s 451 of IPC RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 1 month U/s 354 of IPC RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 1 month The sentences are directed to run concurrently 2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant belongs to the Mahar caste, and the accused, Naresh Kumar, resides in the village Pinkapar. The accused was aware of the complainant’s caste. On the date of the incident, 5th January 2006, at around 8:30 PM, the complainant had gone to the toilet in her house to relieve herself and was closing the toilet door when the accused forcibly pushed the door open and entered the toilet. The accused started holding the complainant’s hands and arms, to which the complainant called out to her husband for help. Hearing her cries, the complainant’s husband rushed to the scene, upon which the accused started fighting with him. While attempting to restrain the accused, the complainant’s husband managed to grab hold of the accused, but the accused escaped and fled. In the scuffle, the accused’s sweater was left in the hands of the complainant’s husband. During the struggle, the complainant’s bangles on her right hand were broken. The accused had grabbed the complainant’s hands and arms with the intent to insult 3 and humiliate her. Upon hearing the complainant’s cries, her father-in-law, Mohanlal, also came out of his room and witnessed the accused fleeing. Based on the above, the complainant reported the incident. On the basis of said report, First Information Report (Ex.P-3) was registered. Thereafter, caste certificate of the complainant was seized vide Ex.P-1. A site map was prepared vide Ex.P-6. After a complete investigation, a charge sheet was filed. 3. So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 11 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. However, two defence witnesses have been examined by him in his defence. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.02.2007, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 aged about 41 years at present and he has already remained in jail for about 9 days. The incident took place in year 2006 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 for 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 4 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 the complainant (PW-2), her husband (PW- 3) and her father-in-law (PW-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 conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 451 & 354 of the IPC. 9. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2006 about 19 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellant is aged about 41 years at present, and he has already remained in jail for about 9 days, 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 1 year to the period already undergone by him i.e. 9 days for the offence punishable under Sections 451 & 354 of IPC. However, the fine amount for offence under Sections 451 of IPC is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs. 2,000/-. Similarly the fine amount for offence under Sections 354 of IPC is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs. 2,000/- which shall be deposited by the Appellant within 60 days from today. In default of payment thereof, the Appellant shall be liable to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. Any amount of fine deposited by the Appellant shall be adjusted in the fine imposed upon him by this Court today. 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 5 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