1 2025:CGHC:24722 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 618 of 2018 Jiteshwar Kumar @ Jitu Sahu S/o Narottam Sahu, Aged About 23 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Matka, P.S. And Tahsil - Bemetara, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Arakshi Kendra Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/06/2025 1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 08.06.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.39/2017, whereby the learned appellate Court has affirmed the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Sections 452, 354, 354-क, 354-घ of the IPC but has reduced the sentence awarded to the applicant from RI for 3 AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 years to RI for 1 year in each offence passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara in Criminal Case No.696/2015. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim (P.W.-1), wife of Pawan Yadav, alleged that on 25.07.2015, at around 3 P.M., the applicant entered her house in village Marka while she was alone. She claimed the applicant threw her onto a cot, and when she cried out for help, he fled the scene, she did not disclose to her husband about the indicated incident. However, on 29.07.2015, the applicant allegedly repeated a similar act, after which she informed her husband about both incidents. The victim then filed a First Information Report (FIR) at the Bemetara Police Station. 3. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and based on the prosecution's evidence, the applicant was convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court the applicant preferred an criminal appeal before the appellate Court vide its judgment dated 08.06.2018, whereby learned appellate Court had reduced the sentence from RI for 3 years to RI for 1 year in each offence. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the judgment of the trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the applicant and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. Both the trial Court as well as appellate Court have failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. There are material 3 contradictions and omissions in the statement of the complainant. Alternatively, he submits that the trial Court has awarded the sentence of RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- to the applicant in each offence which was later modified by the appellate Court, the appellate Court has reduced the sentence from RI for 3 years to RI for 1 year in each offence. Considering the age of the applicant as applicant at present is aged about 29 years and as he has faced criminal trial since 2015, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant has already undergone 1 month of jail sentence as the appellate Court has modified the sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.696/2015 and bail was granted to him by this Court only on 09.07.2018. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State, submits that both the trial Court and the appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant for offence under Sections 452, 354, 354-क, 354-घ of the IPC and sentenced to 4 undergo RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-. In appeal preferred by the applicant, the appellate Court has affirmed the conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 354, 354-क, 354-घ of the IPC, but has reduced the sentence awarded by the trial Court from RI for 3 years to RI for 1 year. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting and sentencing the applicant and modifying the sentence of the applicant for offence under Sections 452, 354, 354-क, 354-घ of the IPC. 8. Now considering the question of sentence. As the criminal trial commenced on 19.08.2015 which continued till 17.05.2017 and though the appeal also continued for about 1 year and this revision petition was pending since 13.06.2018 and as such from the date of commencement of trial, more than 9 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone 1 month of jail sentence as the appellate Court has affirmed the conviction of the applicant under Sections 452, 354, 354-क, 354-घ of the IPC, but has reduced the sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court from RI for 3 years to RI for 1 year in each offence and bail was granted to him by this Court only on 09.07.2018, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant again in jail as he has already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it 5 appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 1 year (each) under Sections 452, 354, 354-क, 354-घ of the IPC to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 1 month of jail sentence, however fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,500/- under Section 452 of the IPC, from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,500/- under Section 354 of the IPC, from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,500/- under Section 354-क of the IPC and from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,500/- under Section 354-घ of the IPC, total Rs.10,000/-, in addition to the amount awarded by the trial Court. Enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the applicant within a period of two months from today before the concerned trial Court and the same shall be paid to Government Multi Disability Home, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.), failing which the trial Court shall take him into custody in accordance with law to further undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the appellate Court. Ordered accordingly. 9. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 10. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil