1 2025:CGHC:11544 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 617 of 2011 • Umesh Kumar S/o. Meelu Ram Taram, Aged about 23 years, R/o. Village Boridkala, P.S. Gurur, Distt. Durg C.G. ... Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gurur, District-Durg (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, on behalf of BP Singh, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 07/03/2025 1. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 30.01.2025, Appellant-Umesh Kumar along with his counsel is present today before this Court. His Presence be marked. 2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District- Durg (C.G.) in S.T. No. 01/2011 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.03.10 17:41:50 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 354 of IPC R.I. for 02 years with fine of Rs. 100/-; in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 01 month. U/s 363 of IPC R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs. 100/-; in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 01 month. (Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently) 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.10.2010 at about 6:00 Pm, the victim was playing with her friends Rupendra and Shailendra in front of the Durga Manch in village Boridkala. The appellant has given temptation to supply kite and abducted the victim and forcefully taken her to the Bhadar Khar in the land of Santu Mandavi near boring, where the appellant forcefully tried to rape her after opened her cloths. Thereafter the victim returned home and narrated the incident to her mother. Thereafter, the mother of the victim namely Bedbai Katlam had lodged the report against the present appellant and on the basis of report lodged, an offence was registered against the present appellant U/s 363, 376/511 of IPC. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 13 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 09.08.2011, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 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 submits that the appellant has no criminal antecedent, he is now aged about 37 years of age and has family responsibilities and he has already remained in jail for about 09 months. The incident took place in the year 2010 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. This appeal is pending since 2011. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant 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 and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 9. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of the victim (PW-1), Bedbai (PW-2), Chain Singh (PW-3), Gajanand Markaam (PW-8) and M.D. Tiwari (PW-9), establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 354 and 363 of IPC which is based on evidence 4 available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 10. As regards the sentence part, the incident had taken place in the year 2010 i.e. about 14 years ago. At that time, the appellant was aged about 23 years and now he must be aged about 37 years having family responsibility. The appellant is facing the lis since 2010 and he has already remained in jail for about more than 09 months. Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to send back the appellant to jail and the ends of justice would serve if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Sections 354 and 363 of IPC is maintained and the sentence of RI for 2 years and 07 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. more than 09 months. 12. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case. However, 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. 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.