1 2025:CGHC:3499 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1685 of 2021 1 - Jitendra Sonwani S/o Keshavram Aged About 19 Years Resident Of Kukda, Police Station Palari, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattis- garh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Palari, Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ----Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Ritika Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble S hri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 20.01.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act 2012) Balod (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 32/2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Section Sentenced to 376 of the IPC R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 2000/- and, in default of payment of fine, addi- 2 tional R.I. for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.01.2021, the prosecutrix along with her son were in her house and at about 7:30 PM when she was going for nature call at her courtyard and in the meantime, the appli- cant came there and when he has tired to outrage of her modesty then she run away from the spot and thereafter, the complainant has made complaint to the concerned police station against the appellant and on the basis of complaint made by the complainant, the concerned police has registered the offence under Section 376 and 511 of the Indian Pe- nal Code as crime No. 21/2021. After completion of investigation, the appellant has been arrested. The charge-sheet was filed for the afore- said offences against the appellant / accused before the competent Court against the appellant. 3. In order to bring home the above-stated offences, the prosecution exam- ined as many as 14 witnesses including the prosecutrix (PW-1). State- ment of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, in which they denied their guilt and have taken the stand that they have been falsely implicated in this case. However, the accused/appel- lants examined no defense witness. 4. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Baloda Bazar, District Balod Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure A-1), convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced 3 him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on 22.01.2021, there was dispute arose between the appellant and father of the prosecutrix on the ground that the appellant has parked his motorcycle infront of the house of the prosecutrix. On the next very day, the complainant has made a concocted story and filed a false complaint against the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix has been medically examined by the Dr. Anita Verma (PW-13) and the medical re- port has been exhibited as (Ex.P/12) wherein it clearly shows that no sexual relationship developed with the prosecutrix recently and medical evidence did not support the contentions of the prosecutrix. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecu- tion witnesses and on that basis, the appellants cannot be convicted. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded deserves to be set-aside. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that considering the age of the appellant as appellant at present is aged about 23 years, as he is facing criminal trial since 2021 and as the appellant has already undergone 4 years of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably to the period already undergone by him. She placed his reliance upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the matter of Prabhuram Satnami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now CG) in CRA No. 3125 of 1998, the Cor-ordinate Bench has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, and therefore, similar relief 4 may be extended to the appellants herein as well. 8. On the other hand, Ms. Sunita Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State, would support the impugned judgment and sub- mits that the prosecutrix was aged about 19 years on the date of incident and the act committed by the appellant was extremely disgusting and of serious nature and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reason- able doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the ap- pellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 of the IPC. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10.From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 21.01.2021, the victim was alone at home with her two year old son Mayank, her husband had gone to Palari for work. At around 07:30pm when she went out towards the backyard of her house to urinate, then the accused came from behind and tried to outrage her modesty. Thereafter victim somehow freed herself from the accused and ran away from there. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/-. 11. 511 of the IPC provides thus:- 511:- Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other 5 imprisonment; Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both. 12.Close scrutiny of the evidence led by the prosecution would make it clear that when the appellant tried to outrage the modesty of the victim, she managed to run away from the place, as such there is no evidence to show of unnatural penetration. Further the prosecutrix has been medically examined by the Dr. Anita Verma (PW-13) and the medical report has been exhibited as (Ex.P/12) wherein it clearly shows that no sexual relationship developed with the prosecutrix recently and medical evidence did not support the contentions of the prosecutrix. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that he shall be guilty of committing an act punishable under Section 511 of IPC. Hence the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC can be altered/converted to Section 511 of the IPC. 13. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC is set aside, however, he is convicted under Section 376 read with Section 6 511 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 2000/-. 14. So far as sentence part is concerned. As the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2021 and thereafter more than 4 years has been elapsed, con- sidering the age of the appellant at present and further considering that the appellant has already undergone 4 years of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court in Session Trial No. 35/2021, there would be no useful pur- pose to remain the appellant in jail as he has already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sen- tence from RI for 7 years under Section 376/511 of the IPC to the period already undergone by the appellant i.e. 4 years of jail sentence. 15. It is reported that the appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 16. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 17. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compli- ance. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti