1 2025:CGHC:10426 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1016 of 2007 Santu @ Sant Kumar, S/o Vikram Kolta, aged about 19 years, R/o Village Dumarpali, P.S. Pithoura, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Pithoura, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 03/03/2025 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.10.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in Special Sessions Case No.22/2007 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 451 IPC RI for 3 months and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default thereof, 15 days additional RI. Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.03.05 10:34:52 +0530 2 U/s 354 IPC RI for 3 months and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default thereof, 15 days additional RI. 2. As per the prosecution story, the incident took place on 28- 10-2006 at around 11:00–11:30 AM. The complainant, Chamelibai Binjhwar, resides in village Dumarpali and works as an agricultural laborer. On the day of the incident, she was alone at home when the appellant entered her house. With the intention of outraging her modesty, he caught hold of her tightly with both arms and started taking her to a room. The complainant resisted and tried to free herself while shouting, “Leave me”!. She also abused the appellant and warned that she would inform the villagers. Upon this, the appellant let her go and ran away. While fleeing, he threatened her, saying, “If you tell anyone, I will kill you.” Due to fear, she could not inform anyone immediately. When her husband returned home from Shantinagar in the evening, she narrated the incident to him. At that time, even her in-laws were not present at home. Upon their return, she informed them about the incident. Thereafter, her husband told Nakul and Shivlal, villagers, about the incident. On 31-10-2006 at 12:00 PM, the complainant lodged the First Information Report at Pithora Police Station. On the basis of this report, crime was registered at Pithora Police Station under Sections 451, 354, 506 part 2 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellant. During the investigation, a spot inspection report (Exhibit P-2) was prepared, the complainant’s caste certificate was obtained and statements of witnesses were recorded. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. 3 3. So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 8 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, pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.10.2007, the learned Judge has acquitted the appellant for offence under Sections 506 Part 2 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, convicted and sentenced him for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He also submits that the appellant is currently aged about 37 years, he is already remained in jail for about 10 days. The incident took place in October, 2006 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. The appeal is pending since 2007. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence of the appellant of the above offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the 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 complainant Chameli Bai (PW-1), her father- in-law Ghurnu (PW-2) and Nakul (PW-4), establish the 4 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 the conviction of the appellant for the offence as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. 9. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in October, 2006 about 18 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellant is aged about 37 years at present, he is already remained in jail for about 10 days and he is facing the lis since October 2006, in the interest of justice, in considered opinion of this Court, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant from R.I. for 3-3 months to the period already undergone by him i.e. 10 days for the offence punishable under Sections 451 & 354 of IPC. However, the fine amount of the above offence shall remain intact. It is ordered accordingly. 10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11.The appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. 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. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Shubham