1 2025:CGHC:8486 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 815 of 200 7 • Bheshram @ Bhesh Kumar S/o Kanhai Ram, aged about 26 years, Occupation – Agriculture, R/o Village: Dundera, P.S.- Arjunda, District: Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station: Arjunda, District: Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 18 / 02 /202 5 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.07.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge Durg (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 06/2007 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 456 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.02.21 10:19:50 +0530 2 R.I. for 2 months. U/s 354 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 2 months. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.10.2006 the complainant’s husband went to Durg and did not return at night, the complainant after having dinner with her father-in-law and mother-in-law at about 8:00 pm, slept in the room. At midnight the appellant entered her room with bad intentions and kept her hand when the complainant woke up she shouted, and due to that her mother-in-law also woke up, hence, the appellant ran away from the room. During that time in light of the chimney, the complainant and her mother-in-law saw the appellant. Due to the shouting of the complainant, other women Chanda Bai and Anjan Bai came to the spot and also saw the appellant running from the house. The next day when the husband of the complainant returned to the house, the complainant narrated the whole incident but due to the illness of her husband they could not lodge the report and when the complainant’s husband recovered from illness she lodged a report against the appellant on 27.10.2006. Based on which, an FIR was registered against the appellant and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 7 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 3 conviction and order of sentence dated 30.07.2007, learned Judge has acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced 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 than 18 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about 44 years and he has already remained in jail for about 7 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 Victim/complainant (PW-1), Tijai Bai (PW-2), Suneti Bai (PW-4), K.B. Singh (PW-5), Chanda Bai (PW-6), Arun Kumar (PW-7) and Basant Kumar (PW-8), 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 offences punishable under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC. 4 9 As regards sentence, keeping in view 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 also considering that the appellant has no criminal antecedent and has already remained in jail for about 7 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 him instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 2-2 year for the offences punishable under Sections 456 & 354 of IPC. However, the fine amount of Rs. 1000/-, 1000/- imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 3,000/-, 3000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 456 & 354 of IPC. The appellant shall pay the total fine of Rs. 6,000/-. In default of payment of the fine amount imposed/enhanced by this Court today, the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 3 months. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted. 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 along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu