1 2025:CGHC:6909 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 589 of 2007 • Lav Kumar Seth S/o Babaji Seth, Aged about 40 years, R/o Tore Sinha, Police station Saraipali, District-Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, 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 14.06.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No. 03/2007, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 341 of IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 15 days SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.02.07 14:30:54 +0530 2 and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount further R.I for 03 days. U/s 354 of IPC. R.I. for 03 months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount further R.I for 15 days. 2 The case of the prosecution is that on 06.06.2006, at about 10 AM, the prosecutrix was returning home with mahua fruits from a house of Sanjasanwara and when reached near the house of Surendra Kumar Pathi, the appellannt blocked her path and outraged her modesty knowing well that the prosecutrix is belongs to Saura Tribe and when she raised an alarm, the appellant has ran away. Thereafter, 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, 341, 323 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 10 witnesses and exhibited 09 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 14.06.2007, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and 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 3 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 58 years and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 08 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, Prosecutrix (PW-1), Ramchandra (PW- 2), Mali bai (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 offences punishable under Sections 354 and 341 of IPC. 9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 06.06.2006 about 18 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 08 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 4 imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable U/s 341 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 03 month for the offence punishable under Sections 354 of IPC. However, the fine amount imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact. 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.