1 2025:CGHC:6650 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 444 of 2014 Rakesh Sahu, S/o Janak Ram Sahu, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Village - Ghoghra, Thana Pithoura, Civil And Rev. District Mahasamund C.G. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Patel and Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocates appearing on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 05/02/2025 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.03.2014 passed Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.02.06 17:29:08 +0530 2 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act 2012), FTC Mahasamund (C.G.), in Special Session Case No.11/2013 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 363 of IPC RI for 4 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof, 2 months additional RI. U/s 366 of IPC RI for 4 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof, 2 months additional RI. 2. In compliance of order of this Court dated 28.11.2024, the Appellant is present before this Court today. His presence is marked. 3. As per the prosecution story, on 02.09.2013, the victim, aged about 14 years, residing in Village Ghoghra, Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund, went to Ghoghra Middle School. At 1:30 PM, when the lunch break occurred at school, she left for home. Outside the school, accused Rakesh Kumar, a resident of her village, told her, “If you don’t come with me, I will cut my wrist.” Out of fear, she got scared, and the accused forcibly made her sit on his motorcycle and took her to Bagbahara Railway Station. He then told her that he would take her to Raipur and marry her. Rakesh Kumar was luring, threatening, and coercing the victim to go with him. From the railway station, the victim’s father took her to the police station. Based on her written report, Police Station Pithora registered the Crime against the accused. During the investigation, a certificate regarding the victim’s age was collected. Her statement was recorded. The investigating officer prepared the site map, recorded the statements of witnesses, and completed other formalities. After completing the investigation, a charge 3 sheet was filed. 4. So as to hold the Appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 12 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. However, 3 documents were exhibited by him in his defence. 5. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.03.2014, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 6. 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 more than 29 years, he has already remained in jail for about 8 months 18 days. The incident took place in the year 2013 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. The appeal is pending since 2014. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence of the appellant of the above offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of victim (PW-1), father of the victim (PW-2) and uncle of the victim (PW-3), establish the involvement of 4 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 punishable under Sections 363 & 366 of the IPC. 10.As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2013 about 12 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellant is aged more than 29 years at present, he has already remained in jail for about 8 months 18 days and he is facing the lis since 2013, 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 4-4 years to the period already undergone by him i.e. 8 months 18 days for the offence punishable under Sections 363 & 366 of the IPC. However, the fine amount for the above offences shall remain intact, ordered accordingly. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12.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. 13. 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