1 2025:CGHC:12853 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 891 of 2007 Lekhram, S/o Basawan Sahu, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Bhurkoni, Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 18.03.2025 1. In compliance of order dated 07.02.2025 of this Court, the Appellant is present along with his Counsel before this Court today. His presence be marked. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.03.20 11:42:11 +0530 2 Section 374 (2) of CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.08.2007 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No. 28/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 3 months. 3. The case of prosecution is that, the incident occurred on 02- 01-2007 at around 11:00 AM. The complainant (PW-1) lodged a report regarding this incident on 03-01-2007 at 2:00 PM at Pithora Police Station, District Mahasamund. Based on her report, an FIR (Exhibit P-1) was registered against the accused/appellant, Lekharam. As per the FIR: On 01-01-2007, at around 2:00 PM, the complainant went on foot with Puranikbai to Sohagpur to watch a folk dance festival (Madai Nacha), while returning to the village, Sadanand (husband of Puranikbai) was riding a bicycle, with complainant sitting in the front and Puranikbai sitting behind. Since three people riding on one bicycle was difficult, they fell, and the bicycle broke down. At that moment, appellant Lekharam, a fellow villager, was seen passing by on his bicycle. Sadanand requested Lekharam to take the complainant on his bicycle. While taking the complainant back to the village, Lekharam diverted towards Pardongari. There, he stopped the bicycle and attempted to remove her skirt. When she screamed, he covered her mouth. She managed to free her hands and screamed again, at which point Sadanand and Puranikbai arrived at the scene. Seeing them, Lekharam left the complainant and fled on his bicycle. Based on complainant’s report, a case was registered, and 3 investigation began. A site map (Exhibit P-02) was prepared, and her birth certificate and caste certificate were seized. Witness statements were recorded, and the accused was arrested. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the appellant for offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, however convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines her argument only on sentence part. She submits that the appellant is now aged about 53 years of age and has family responsibilities and he has already remained in jail for about 21 days. The incident took place in the year 2007 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. This appeal is also pending since 2007. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period 4 already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 9. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of complainant (PW-1) and Sadanand (PW-2), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 10.As regards the sentence part, the incident had taken place in the year 2007 i.e. about 18 years ago. At that time, the appellant was aged about 35 years and now he must be aged about 53 years having family responsibility. The appellant is facing the lis since 2007 and he has already remained in jail for about 21 days. Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to send back the appellant to jail and the ends of justice would serve if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 354 of IPC is maintained and the sentence of RI for 1 year is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 21 days. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 12. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 5 13. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case. However, 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. 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham