1 2025:CGHC:7111 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 54 of 2007 • Holinath @ Naan S/o Shri Sohar Sai Chouhan, Aged about 23 years, R/o Kantiprakashpur, P.S. Ambikapur, Distt.-Sarguja (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through:- P.S. Darima, Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. N.K. Mehta, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 07/02/2025 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.01.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Atrocities, Surguja, Ambikapur C.G. in Special Session Case No. 36/2006, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 363 of IPC. R.I. for five years. U/s 366 of IPC R.I. for five years. 2 The case of the prosecution is that on 03.03.2006, at 2 about 01:30 P.M, prosecutrix No. 1 and 2 were on their way to school. When they reached the vicinity of Bihi Badi (Head Post Office), the present appellant, accompanied by a co-accused, arrived in a Tata Qualis. They forcibly took the prosecutrixes away in the vehicle without their consent, intending to have sexual intercourse. The appellant was aware that the prosecutrixes belonged to the SC/ST caste. The incident occurred near Balkharikha Village, where the police coincidentally arrived and took both appellants (accused) into custody. Subsequently, an offense was registered against the present appellant and the co- accused person under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecutions have examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 06 documents. However, the appellant has exhibited 01 documents in his defense. 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 08.01.2007, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the appellant has been convicted for the offense as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the 3 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. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2006, and thereby about 19 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged more than 41 years and he has already remained in jail for about 03 months 13 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 Prosecutrix No.1 (PW-1), Prosecutrix No. 2 (PW-2) and other witnesses Ramdas Ram (PW-3) & Dayal Tirki (PW-4), 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 the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC. 9 As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 03.03.2006 about 19 years ago, he is currently aged about more than 41 4 years and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellant has already remained in jail for about 03 months 13 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 imprisonment for 05-05 years for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC. However, the appellant is sentenced with fine of Rs.5000-5000/- for offence under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC, and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall liable to undergo R.I. for 03-03 months. 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 Let copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Arpan