1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 749 of 2016 Shivnarayan @ Shivkumar Sahu S/o Kanhaiya Lal Sahu, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village - Khursul, Police Station - Arjunda, Thana - Nevai, Tahsil and District – Durg, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Durg, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 23/07/2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 18.07.2016 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.0000277/2014 arising out of the judgment dated 18.08.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.201/2011. The learned Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by upholding the conviction of the applicant under Sections 457 and 354 of the IPC and modifying the period of sentence from R.I. of 2 years to S.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 457 IPC and from R.I. of 1 year to S.I. of 6 months with fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.07.23 16:50:31 +0530 2 of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 28.05.2011 the complainant (PW-01) lodged an FIR (Ex.P-1) before the police station – Newai, District Durg, stating that at about 11:00 PM, the applicant entered into her house with bad intention, demanded to establish physical relationship with her and also tried to outrage her modesty. Thereafter, when the complainant raised alarm, the applicant ran away from the place of incident and she went into the house of her neighbour Chunnu Ram (PW-03) and narrated him about the incident. On the basis of the above background, offence was registered against the applicant and statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of JMFC, Durg, against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in Criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 18.07.2016, partly allowed the appeal upholding the conviction of the applicant and reducing the period of sentence as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further 3 submits that the applicant has remained in jail for about 29 days i.e. from 30.05.2011 to 02.06.2011 and from 18.07.2016 to 12.08.2016, he is facing the lis since 28.05.2011 i.e. for more than 14 years. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and the fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned trial Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment passed by the learned JMFC and Appellate Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of complainant (PW-01), Chunnu Lal Sahu (PW-03), Nirbai (PW-04) supported with the other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant. 9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that applicant has remained in jail for about 29 days, he is facing the lis since 2011 i.e. for more than 14 years, he has no criminal antecedent and further, the fine amount has already been deposited, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicant back to jail again, and ends of justice would be met if, while upholding 4 the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 29 days. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is hereby affirmed. 11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash