1 2025:CGHC:19717 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1235 of 2021 Vishram Jaiswal S/o Kirit Jaiswal, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Jaroud, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin) District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ramcharan Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 30/04/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code or Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.02.2021, passed by learned Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, in VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.01 19:01:12 +0530 2 Special Criminal Case No. H-37 of 2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 354-B of IPC and sentenced R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 03 months. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 16.12.2018, the mother of the victim (PW-1) lodged a report to the police that a 10th day rituals was going on after death of the father of a villager and she had also gone there. At about 6.30 PM, the appellant took her daughter with him and when after short while when she followed, she found her daughter near well of the village, who was in naked condition and when she scolded him, he left her daughter there and fled away. On the written complaint (exhibit P-1) lodged by the mother of the victim, the FIR (exhibit P-2) was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 354-B of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. 3. Spot map (exhibit P-3) was prepared by the Police and exhibit P-4 was prepared by the Patwari. The copy of birth certificate (Article A- 1C) of the victim has been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-6) . The appellant was arrested on 17.12.2018. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CRPC have been recorded and statement of the victim under Section 164 of CRPC has also been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 354-B of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. 3 4. The learned trial Court has framed charge for the offence under Section 354-B of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. He denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CRPC has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, pleaded innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he is not challenging the conviction of the appellant for the alleged offence, but he is challenging the sentence awarded to him, as Section 354-B of IPC provided the minimum sentence for R.I. for 03 years and in the present case the appellant has already remained in jail for 04 years, 02 months and 15 days. He would also submit that the incident is of the year 2018 and presently the appellant is aged about 57 years. He is having innumerable responsibilities of his family. Therefore, his sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by him. 4 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that the learned trial Court after adverting the entire evidence available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, which needs no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Although the appellant is not challenging his conviction part, yet this Court from the evidence of victim (PW-2), her mother (PW-1), her sister (PW-4) and her grandmother (PW-7) finds support the conviction of the appellant that on the date of incident he took the minor victim and used the criminal force against her with intent to disrobe her and get her clothes removed and left her in naked condition. 11. With respect to the sentence awarded to the appellant, Section 354- B provides the minimum sentence of 03 years, which may extend to 07 years and the accused shall also be liable to fine. 12. In the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries and held in Para 9 as follows: "9. Western jurisprudes and sociologists. from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samuel Romilly, 5 critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817: "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested: 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Center, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education'. If it is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration. that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by reculturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and the goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore, consider a therapeutic, rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts. since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw: 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield: "If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal 6 Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences." 13. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the provisions of Section 354-B of IPC and sentence provided in it, further that the appellant presently appears to be aged about 57 years, he has already remained in jail for more than 04 years, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is to be reduced. 14. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 354-B of IPC is affirmed and his sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is reduced from R.I. for 05 years to R.I. for 04 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further R.I. for 01 month. 15. With the aforesaid modification/alteration in the sentence, the appeal is partly allowed. 16. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 27.02.2021. He is entitled for set-off of his undergone period. 17. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the 7 assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 18. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved