1 2025:CGHC:6908 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 326 of 2007 • Santosh Kumar S/o Sakru Ram Bhardwaj, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Bandara, Police Station Kondagaon, District-Bastar (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • The State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Police Station Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shobhit Kostha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 06/02/2025 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.04.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur C.G. in Sessions Trial No. 130/2006, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 354 of IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year.s SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.02.07 14:30:54 +0530 2 2 The case of the prosecution is that on 28.12.2005, at about 08:00 P.M. when the victim along with her two friends was returning from the house of Puna Ram after watching TV and when they reached Kirana Shop of Prem Sahu, during that time, the present appellant allegedly called the victim aside, took her behind the shop and asked for sexual intercourse. The victim raised an alarm, on account of that the Rajman and Mangal Gond reached at the spot and saw that the appellant was escaping from the place of incident, thereafter, the prosecutrix returned home and narrated the incident to her father Mehattar Ram. The matter was subsequently reported to the Police Station and First Information Report was filed against the appellant and charge sheet has been filed under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 06 witnesses and exhibited 04 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 13.04.2007, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the appellant has been convicted 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 2005, and thereby more than 19 years have rolled by since 3 then. At present, the appellant is aged about 40 years and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 04 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 on record including the impugned judgment. 8 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses, victim (PW-1), Rajman (PW-3), Mehattar Ram (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 Sections 354 of IPC. 9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 28.12.2005 about 19 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellant has already remained in jail for about 04 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, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him instead of rigorous imprisonment for 01 year for the offence punishable under Sections 354 of IPC. However, the fine amount of Rs.1000/- imposed upon the appellant and in default of payment of fine amount R.I. for 02 months. 4 11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12 Appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. 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 Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Sourabh P.