1 2025:CGHC:14631 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1158 of 2013 • Om Prakash Sahu, Aged About 22 Years, S/o Shri Angeshwar Sahu, R/o Ward No. 06, P.S. and Distt. Mahasamund, Civil And Revenue Distt. Mahasamund C.G. --- Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. City Kotwali, P.S. and Distt. Mahasamund, Civil And Revenue Distt. Mahasamund C.G. --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 26/03/2025 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mahasamund (C.G.) in S.T. No. 24/2013 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.03.27 10:10:09 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 363 of IPC R.I. for 04 years with fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 02 months. U/s 366 of IPC R.I. for 04 years with fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 02 months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.12.2011 at about 08:00 am, the father of complainant Mohd. Ishak left for work and returned home around 01:00 Pm and found that her daughter was missing. Thereafter, a search was conducted but the complainant was not found. A verbal report was lodged at the Mahasamund Police Station and an FIR was registered. During the investigation, the complainant returned on 14.01.2012 and stated that she had left home due to tension and that no one had abducted her. The case was subsequently closed on 21.07.2012. However, on 16.09.2012, the complainant submitted a written report stating that the present appellant/accused had lured her into marriage and abducted her on 19.12.2011 and took her to Raipur and kept her in the house of his relative where he commit forcefully sexual intercourse. The next day, the appellant took her to Ajmer Sharif by train and kept her in a lodge, where he again raped her. The complainant further stated that the accused and his mother threatened her and forced her to file a false report against her family members. Based on the written report of the complainant, Mahasamund Police Station re-registered the case and 3 after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and offence was registered against the present appellant/accused U/s 363, 366 and 376 of IPC. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the victim has examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. The statement of the appellant was 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 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.2013, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC 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. 5. 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 is now aged about more than 35 years of age and has family responsibilities and the appellant has no previous criminal record and he has already remained in jail for about 06 months. The incident took place in the year 2011 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. This appeal is pending since 2013. 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. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record 4 including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Dr. Karuna Aawade (PW-1), Rupa Chandrakar (PW-2), Complainant (PW-3), Mohd Ishaq (PW- 5), Manjeet Singh Chandrasen (PW-6), Primila Mandavi (PW- 8), 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 363 and 366 of IPC which is based on the material available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards the sentence part, the incident had taken place in the year 2011 i.e. about 13 years ago and now he must be aged about more than 35 years having family responsibility. The appellant is facing the lis since 2013 and he has no previous criminal record and has already remained in jail for about 06 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. 10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC is maintained and the sentence of RI for 04-04 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 06 months. However, the fine amount imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. 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 5 437-A of the CrPC. 13. 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/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.