1 2025:CGHC:10964 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 417 of 200 7 • Kanta @ Kamta Prasad S/o Mahetaru Singroul, aged about 19 years, R/o Village Bhrewa, Thana Pathariya, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station – Pathariya, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 05 / 03 /202 5 1 Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22.01.2025, the appellant is present in person before this Court. His presence be marked. 2 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.05.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No. 12/2007 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.03.05 17:40:29 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 363 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 6 months. U/s 366 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 6 months. 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.03.2006 at about 3:00 pm, the victim (PW-1) was not at home. She took a sari and Rs. 2,100/- and went somewhere without informing anyone. On the way, the victim and the accused Kamta Prasad were seen going together. The father of the victim lodged a missing report vide Ex.P-6 at the Police Station Pathariya. On 13.06.2006, the victim returned to the village, then she went to the Pathariya Police Station and narrated about the incident. On questioning, the victim revealed that the accused/appellant had eloped her and taken her to Amravati (Maharashtra). The appellant kept her with him for about one and a half months by threatening her and during that period the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her. Based on which, FIR was lodged. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 4 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 15 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. 5 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of 3 conviction and order of sentence dated 26.05.2007, learned Judge has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offences as mentioned in para-2 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 6 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 more than 19 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about 38 years and he has already remained in jail for about 4 months and 4 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. 7 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for 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 the witnesses Victim (PW-1), Uttam (PW-2), Khileshwar Singroul (PW-4), Kalidas (PW-6), Pooran Singh Beru (PW-8), K.D. Prabhakar (PW-9) and Dr. Shikha Sinha (PW-11), 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 4 conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC. 10 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in 2006 about 19 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the victim was above 16 years of age at the time of the incident and she was consenting party, the appellant has no criminal antecedents and he has already remained in jail for about 4 months and 4 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. 11 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back the appellant to jail. Hence, appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 5-5 years for the offences punishable under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13 Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 14 Record of the trial Court be sent along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu