1 2025:CGHC:764 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 861 of 2015 Gopal Das S/o Panchu Das Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bhouradand, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o At 96, Dafai Podi, Police Station Podi, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Civil And Rev. Distt. Korea, District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Baikunthpur, Police Of Police Station Podi, District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 22.09.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 12/2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.), arising out of the judgment dated 25.03.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 511/2014, whereby the learned Session Judge has ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.07 12:09:28 +0530 2 convicted the applicant for offence under Section 451 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 1 month and under Section 354(B) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and pay fine of Rs.100/-, In default of payment of fine, S.I. for 1 month. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19.06.2014 when the prosecutrix was alone in her house, some unknown persons knocked the door of the house of the prosecutrix and thereafter the prosecutrix opened the door and came inside of the house. It is alleged against the applicant is that he entered in the house of the prosecutrix and tried to outrage her modesty That, the matter was reported to the police of Police Station Podi, District Korea (C.G.) on 21.06.2014, whereby the police registered the offence under Section 452, 354(B) of Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation, the police of Police Station Podi, District Korea (C.G.) filed the charge sheet before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.), whereas the criminal case no. 511/2014 was registered. The Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) framed the charges under Section 452, 354(B) of Indian Penal Code and after scrutinizing the evidence and material available on record, the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the applicant, particular of which given above in the cause title. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an appeal before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, District - Korea (C.G.) who upheld the order passed by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.). Hence this criminal revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case, therefore liable to be set-aside. The learned courts failed to appreciate that there are major contradiction and omission in the statement of prosecution witnesses, hence the warrant of conviction of the applicant is bad in law and the same is liable to be set-aside. Further, both the Courts failed to appreciate the deposition of P.W.-1, wherein the prosecutrix admitted the fact that she was having an affair alongwith the applicant and as per para 10 of her deposition, the prosecutrix admitted this fact that on the date of incident, the applicant did not acted in a wrong manner. She has further admitted the fact that she did not informed her parents about the affair as the father of the victim disliked the applicant. Lastly, the applicant has already suffered the jail sentence for a period of 309 days and have faced the criminal trial for so many years, which meets the ends of justice. 4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/ State, would strongly support the impugned judgment and submit that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of the trial Court and appellate Court and records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 6. Perusal of the records of the trial Court goes to show that after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the applicant has been convicted for offence under Section 451 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 1 month and under Section 354(B) of the IPC and 4 sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and pay fine of Rs.100/-, In default of payment of fine, S.I. for 1 month. 7. The learned trial Court and appellate Court has erred in convicting the applicant for the offence under Section 354(B) of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 3 years and pay fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for 1 month, in spite of the fact that the victim has stated in her deposition that she was having an affair with the applicant and she in her cross-examination has admitted the fact that there was an affair between the revisionist and her and she did not inform her parents about the same as her father disliked the affair with the applicant. Further, she has also admitted the fact that on the date of incident, the applicant did not acted in a wrong manner. In spite of the said fact, the trial Court has convicted and the appellate Court has afÏrmed the conviction and sentence under Section 354(B) of the IPC. 8. In view of the same, the judgment dated 22.09.2015, convicting the applicant is modified to the extent that conviction and sentence of the applicant under Section 354(B) of the IPC is set aside. 9. So far as conviction of the applicant under Section 451 of the IPC is concerned, as the applicant has faced the criminal trial since 2014 and thereafter more than 10 years have elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone almost 309 days of jail sentence, there would be no useful purpose to again send the applicant in jail as he has already suffered agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from R.I. for 1 year under Section 451 of the IPC, to the 5 period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 309 days of jail sentence. 10. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek