1 2025:CGHC:43369 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1220 of 2023 Sumit Tandi S/o Ganpat Tandi Aged About 22 Years Resident of B.S.U.P. Colony, Puraina Talab, Block No. L, House No. 30, P.S. New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 26.08.2025 1. Today, this matter is listed for order on non-appearance of the accused/appellant before the Registry of this Court on 10.09.2024. However, counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant could not appear before the Registry of this Court and the matter is listed on account of non-appearance. He further submits that he is having instructions from the appellant and he is ready to argue the matter finally. 2. On due consideration, the prayer is allowed and the matter is heard PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.01 10:40:35 +0530 2 finally with the consent of both the parties. 3. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2023 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.260/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of fine, additional R.I. for two months. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant has lodged a report to the concerned police station Telibandha that she was working in Ambuja Mall where she was well known about the appellant and subsequently on 25.02.2021 at about 21:30 in the night when she was returning to her house at that time the appellant came there and forcefully carried her on his Active vehicle by threatening to commit murder and tried to outrage her modesty by using filthy language, thereafter, she ran away from the spot and on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, police registered the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506-II, 354, 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant registered as Crime No.90/2021. 5. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) under Section 294, 506-II, 354, 307 of the IPC, from where the case was registered to the Court of Sessions, Raipur (C.G.) where the case commenced for trial. 3 6. The plea of the accused person/appellant was recorded. While examination and recording statement under Section 313 of CrPC, the accused stated that he was innocent and he had been falsely implicated. 7. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused person/appellant of the charge under Sections 294, 506-II and 307 of the IPC, however, convicted him under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and is confining his argument to the quantum of sentence only. He submits that it was first offence of appellant and he has no criminal antecedents. He further submit that the learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant for one year rigorous imprisonment and the appellant has remained in jail for about three months and has already deposited the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- as imposed by the trial Court, therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned trial Court has 4 rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 11. Though learned counsel for appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and confined his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the trial Court. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 12. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the appellant. 13. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the fact that it is the first offence of the appellant and he has no criminal antecedents, further the appellant has remained in jail for about 3 months and has already deposited the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- as imposed by the trial Court, therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may suffice to meet the ends of justice, thus, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5 14. Accordingly, fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/- under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of two months from today before the concerned trial Court. The same shall be disbursed to Government Disabled College, Raipur (C.G.). The fine, if any, already deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted accordingly. 15. In case of default in depositing the enhanced fine within the stipulated period, the trial Court shall take the appellant into custody in accordance with law to further undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the trial Court. 16. The instant appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 17. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti