1 2025:CGHC:34529 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 620 of 2007 1 - Sushil Sutradhar, S/o Haradhan Sutradhar, Aged about 24 years, R/o Dharmpura No.2, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through: District Magistrate Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. N.K. Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 21/07/2025 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.06.2007 passed by learned Special Judge [Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act] Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No. 312/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 354 and 2 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for three months and to undergo S.I. for 3 months respectively. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 12.07.2006, the complainant went to meet her friend. At about 7:30 p.m., when she was returning to her house at that time, the appellant reached there and teased her. When the complainant objected the same the appellant caught hold of her and abused her thereafter, he tried to drag her to a nearby secluded place. Due to the assault made by the appellant complainant fell down on the ground. Somehow the complainant ran away and reached to the house of her sister and narrated the fact to her. On the next day, complainant lodged a report. Medical examination of the prosecutrix/complainant was done. Seizures were made. Prosecutrix belonged to Scheduled Caste. A photocopy of her caste certificate was obtained regarding her caste. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur and from there the matter was committed to Sessions Court on transfer for trial. Learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 354 of IPC and Section 323 of IPC against the appellant, to which appellant abjured his guild and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating 3 circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the appellant under Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not challenging the conviction part of the impugned judgment, however, he is confined his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. He further submits that incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2007, at the time of incident, the appellant was aged about 24 years and as of now he is more than 40 years; appellant has already remained in jail for 5 days. Therefore, considering his age, his undergone period may be considered to be sufficient sentence for the alleged offence. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court after minutely appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC. Therefore, this appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 4 8. Although, learned counsel for the appellant is not challenging the conviction part but upon perusal of statements of complainant (P.W.- 1), Smt. Kanti Sena (P.W.-2), Shankarlal Sahu (P.W.-3), Dr. Govind Singh (P.W.-4), Smt. Noori Dongre (P.W.-5), Raghuveer Dongre (P.W.-6) and D.R.S. Uike (P.W.-7), it is clear that the accused/appellant tried to outrage the modesty of complainant, attempted to commit rape on her and also assaulted her. 9. Dr. Govind Singh (P.W.-4) examined the prosecutrix and found contusion and abrasion on the face of the prosecutrix and gave his report vide Ex.P/5 (A) in this regard. 10. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated statements of all witnesses and oral and documentary evidence including the medical evidence and thereby convicted the appellant as mentioned above. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence of witnesses as well as medical evidence, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC is affirmed. 11. As regards the sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2006, at that time, appellant was 24 years of age and as of now he is more than 40 years; appeal is pending since 2007; appellant remained in jail for 5 days; he was on bail during trial and even during pendency of this appeal and nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that he ever misused the liberty granted to him. In these circumstances, 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. 5 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount already deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted accordingly. 13. The appellant is reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV