NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 503 of 2016 Dr. Vijay Gupta S/o Bharat Lal Gupta, aged about 36 years R/o Chandi Chowk, Shivpara Durg, P.S. Durg, District: Durg Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. S.K. Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 22.04.2025 Heard. 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure arising out of the judgment dated 27.05.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 0000241 of 2014 whereby, the appeal of the applicant filed against the judgment dated 30.07.2014 of Judicial Magistrate First SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.04.23 10:33:41 +0530 Class, Durg in Criminal Case No. 416 of 2006 convicting him under Section 354 of IPC and sentencing him RI for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, SI for 1 month, is affirmed. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant/victim lodged a report on 02.07.2006 before Police Station: Durg, stating therein that when she was admitted in Dhillan Hospital, Durg at that time, the present applicant was engaged as a Doctor in the said hospital and when the complainant/victim was in the bathroom in the morning of 02.07.2006 at 06:00 am, the present applicant entered the bathroom and tried to outrage her modesty. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under Section 354 of IPC were registered against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid section were filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, District: Durg (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the Para No. 1. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 6 days i.e. from 27.05.2016 to 01.06.2016, he is facing the lis since July 2006, i.e. for more than 19 years, he has no criminal antecedents and the fine amount has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 8. Considering the statements of PW-1 complainant/victim, supported by PW-2 (Mother of the victim) and PW-3 (Father of the victim) and 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. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the applicant has undergone about 6 days, he is facing the lis since July 2006 and there is no criminal antecedent against him, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine sentence is affirmed. Page 4 of 4 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. 12. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh