1 2025:CGHC:3477 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 41 of 20 07 • Ramesh @ Bhishm Sahu S/o Shri Dayaluram Sahu, age about 21 years, R/o Gram sendra, at present at Sheetla Chowk, Dagania, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: District Magistrate, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 20 / 01 /202 5 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.01.2007 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 393/2006 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.01.29 16:52:49 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 498-A of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.08.2006 a written complaint was lodged by the complainant/prosecutrix alleging there in that she had in love relationship with the appellant. The appellant took her with him to his house situated at Laxman Nagar, then from there they went to Raipur and resided in the house of advocate Vishvanath Kar as a husband and wife. The appellant assured her to marry her but did not marry her. The appellant took the cash and jewellery carried by her from her house and used to assault her and ran away from there. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant/prosecutrix, FIR was lodged. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited 6 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 12.01.2007, learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5 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 2006 and thereby more 3 than 18 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about 39 years and he has already remained in jail for about 4 months and 21 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. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for 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 witnesses prosecutrix/complaianant (PW-1), Om Prakash Pushpkar (PW-2), Vishwanath Kar (PW-4), Vishwash Chandrakar (PW-5) and Kumari Chandrakar (PW-6), 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 Section 498-A of IPC. 9 As regards sentence, keeping in view of the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2006 about 18 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 4 months and 21 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. 10 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 4 him instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. However, the fine amount imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12 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. 13 Record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu