1 2025:CGHC:1317 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 613 of 2011 • Kaushal Kumar Sahu @ Raju Sahu, S/o Laxminarayan Sahu, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Jamgaon (B), P.S. Balod, Distt.-Durg, C.G. ... Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Durg (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 08/01/2025 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District – Durg (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 11/2011, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 354 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.01.09 14:19:16 +0530 2 2 The case of the prosecution is that the victim, a resident of Jamgaon and an Anganbadi worker, received a call from her supervisor on 09th February, 2011, at about 3:00 PM. The supervisor asked her to meet Lata Usendi at Udiyagaon at 6:00 PM, as there was no male member at home. The victim requested the appellant, the Up- Sarpanch, to leave her to Media Nawagaon on his motorcycle. After meeting Lata Usendi, they returned to Been Jamgaon. However, on the way, the appellant stopped the motorcycle near Angari Puliya, committed obscene acts, and forcibly had sexual intercourse with the victim near a drain. Despite her resistance, he continued the assault and later left her in the village. The next day, the victim informed her husband and the Sarpanch about the incident, thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police Station and First Information Report was filed against the appellant. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed under Section 376 of IPC. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 17 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 14.07.2011, charge has been framed under Section 376 of IPC but the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 354 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. 3 According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2011, and thereby more than 13 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about 43 years and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 5 months and 28 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), Dr. Smt. S. Cladious (PW-4), Dr. S.K. Soni (PW-5), R.D. Singh (PW-6) and P.C. Shrivastava (PW-7), 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 offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. 9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 09.02.2011 about 13 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 5 months and 28 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 Hence, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him for the offence punishable under Sections 354 of IPC. 11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated 4 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.