1 2025:CGHC:6306 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 634 of 2013 Ramdayal S/o Shri Jugutram Gond Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Munmuna, Ps Kukdur, Civil And Rev. Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Distt. Magistrate Kabirdham, Distt. Kabirdham C.G. , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rewa Shankar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.02.2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 16.08.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 28/2013 by the Learned F.T.C. Additional Sessions Judge Kabirdham (Kawardha) District – Kabirdham (C.G.), arising out of judgment of conviction dated 02.05.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandariya (Kawardha), District - Kabirdham (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 836/2008 wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 354 of India Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo three months of rigorous PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.02.05 15:48:48 +0530 2 imprisonment, fine of Rs. 500/ (in default of payment of fine amount of R.I. for 15 days.). 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.12.2008, the complainant was returning to home after take care of the field around 5.00 p.m. it is alleged the applicant has catch hold the complainant and was trying to pull the cloths. She raising alarmed then he uncle came and applicant run away from that place. Thereafter she told the incident to her father and went to the Police Station for lodging the report. The Police have registered offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial the prosecution produced the evidence of Complainant (P.W.1) Kamal Singh (PW.2), Hirau (PW.3), Rupendra Singh (PW.4), Shivcharan (PW.5), Dr. Ajay Dhruw (P.W. 6) Girish Dhurwe, Sub-Inspector (PW.7). After, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class One Kabirdham (Kawardha) has passed the judgment on 02.05.2013 and convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and fine amount Rs.500/- if he fails to deposit the fine amount, further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the material on record and thus, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment itself is bad in law. Learned counsel emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably as the present applicant already undergone near about 01 month and 25 days, so the sentence undergone by him may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice. He further submits that the fine amount has already been deposited. 3 4. Learned State counsel appearing for the respondent/ State and would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need to interfere with the sentence.. 5. I have heard learned State counsel, perused the judgment of the Trial Court and records of the Trial Court with utmost circumspection. 6. 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 and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. I am of the view that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in affirming the conviction of the applicant/accused for the offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code. Thus, the convictions are affirmed. 7. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant/accused is facing the criminal trial since 2013 and more than 09 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant/accused at present and further considering that the applicant/accused has already undergone 01 month and 25 days of jail sentence and he has already deposited the fine amount, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant/accused in jail again as he has already suffered agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant/accused, the jail sentenced awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Ordered accordingly. 4 8. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 9. 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 Preeti