1 2025:CGHC:11127 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 455 of 2007 • Teklal @ Tekuram @ Lukky S/o Gaukaran Sahu, R/o Golhapara, Chowki Chilphi, P.S. Mungeli, Distt - Bilaspur C.G. ... Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mungeli, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ravikar Patel , Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 06/03/2025 1. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22.01.2025, Appellant-Teklal @ Tekuram @ Lukky along with his counsel is present today before this Court. His Presence be marked. 2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.04.2007 passed by the learned 02nd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mungeli, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Case No. 406/2006 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.03.07 17:46:38 +0530 2 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 363 of IPC R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 01 month. U/s 366 of IPC R.I. for 02 years with fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 01 month. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the night of 29.06.2006 at about 11:00 Pm, Kumari Sushma Tiwari went somewhere from her house, then her grandfather Chandrika Prasad informed his son Sushil Tiwari about her departure. On receiving the information, Sushil Tiwari came from Raipur to Golahapara and searched for his daughter Sushma with his friends and family, but she was not found. During the inquiry, it was found that Teku Sahu (neighbour), son of Gaikaran Sahu was also missing. The Government Railway Police (GRP) at Pendra Road Railway Station found Sushma and Teku traveling together and brought them to the Police Station. On 30.06.2006 at about 2:00 PM, Renulal Khatri (PW-5) told the father of Ku. Sushma that message has been received from the GRP at Gaurella, stating that Sushma and Teku were being held there. Sushil Tiwari then filed a report at the Sugli Police Station, alleging that Teku had kidnapped his minor daughter Sushma, on the pretext of marriage. On the basis of report lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, an offence was registered against the present appellant/accused U/s 363 and 366 of IPC. 3 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecutrix has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 14 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 23.04.2007, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing 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 than 18 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about more than 37 years and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 01 month 23 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 on record including the impugned judgment. 9. Having gone through the material available on record and 4 the evidence of the witnesses, Sushil Tiwari (PW-1), Prosecutrix (PW-6), Chandrika Prasad (PW-8), Kamleshwar Prasad Sharma (PW-9), Jayanti Shukla (PW10) and G.P. Yadav (PW-11), 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 363 and 366 of IPC whichis based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 10. As regards the sentence part, the incident had taken place in the year 2006 i.e., about more than 18 years ago. At that time, the appellant was aged about 19 years and now he must be aged about more than 37 years having family responsibility. The appellant is facing the lis since 2006 and he has already remained in jail for about 01 month 23 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. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC are maintained and the sentence of R.I. for 01 years and R.I. 02 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e., 01 month 23 days. However, the fine amount of Rs.500-500/- imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court for the said offence is hereby enhanced to Rs. 2000-2000/- which shall be payable by the appellant, failing which the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 03-03 months. Fine, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted in the fine imposed/enhanced by this Court today. 12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent 5 indicated above. 13. 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. 14. 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.