1 2025:CGHC:19909 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2 of 2016 1 - Anil Kumar Yadav S/o Sheshman Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Pathari, Police Station Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Chalgali, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 30/04/2025 1. Today when the matter is called out for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. I, therefore, requested for assistance from a counsel of the High Court legal aid services committee, Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate has been nominated to assist the court. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the 2 depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted both by Advocate through the High Court Legal Services Committee and Learned State Counsel. In view of (2014) SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesi), I do not consider it necessary to ad- journ this case and issue fresh notice to the Appellant as his inter- est has been duly taken care of by nominating another counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.12.2015 passed by the learned Spe- cial Judge [ ST & SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Sarguja (Am- bikapur)(C.G.), in Special Sessions Case No. 55/2014 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence U/s 354(A)(2) of IPC R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of fine, additional R.I. for 2 months. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 24.10.2014 at about 3:00 pm when the prosecutrix had gone for taking bath an wash- ing clothes at Seeta Nala, it is alleged that the present accused/ appellant has pressed the breast of the prosecutrix with intent to outrage her modesty. After the aforesaid incident, on the basis of First Information given by the Prosecutrix (PW-1) FIR (Ex. P-1) has been lodged at the police of police station Chalgali District- Balrampur, Ramanujganj, C.G. Thereafter, the investigation has 3 been completed and charge sheet has been filed. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 6 witnesses. Statements of appellant (accused) was also recorded under Sec- tion 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence ap- pearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by him in his defence. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment con- victed and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as de- scribed above of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order of conviction passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record, hence the same is liable to be set-aside. The husband of the prosecutrix (PW-2) namely Suresh Kansi and other independent witness PW-3 namely Methun Ghasiya and PW-4 namely Sushil Bunkar have been turned hostile before the trial court. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant and therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the ap- pellant at present is aged about 49 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2015 and he has already undergone more than 27 days of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court in Special 4 Sessions Case No. 55/2014. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated and considered the documents available on record. Being so, the impugned judgment is strictly in accordance with law and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record placed on record. 9. On perusal of record it transpires that PW-1/ prosecutrix has de- posed in her statement that the incident took place on 24.10.2014 at 3:00 pm. She went to bathe and wash clothes at Sitanala river of Village. At the time of incident, the prosecutrix was alone at the place of incident. The accused came to the place of incident by hiding himself and started pulling her by holding her hands and caught her chest. When the prosecutrix shouted then her cousin brothers Sushil, Mithun and other persons came and then the ac- cused ran away. 10.PW-3/ Mithun has deposed in his statement that the incident hap- pened at around 4 years ago when he was watching TV at Suresh Gupta’s house then suddenly he heard someone is screaming for help. Upon hearing the noise he came outside the house and saw that one lady is shouting and he did not remem- 5 ber her name. 11.PW-4/ Sushil Kumar has deposed that on the date of incident, he was returning from Balrampur on his motorcycle at around 4-5 pm. At a distance of about 1 km from the place of incident, he saw the accused and one other person. 12.In the case at hand, the applicant has clearly identified the ac- cused at the scene of the incident and at about the same time Sushil Kumar (PW-4) had seen the accused near the scene of the incident. Witness Mithun (PW-3) had also seen a person run- ning away from the scene of the incident. Although he could not identify him, his statements confirm that a person had committed the incident at the spot and he was running away from the spot. 13. On the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution, the docu- ments presented and the statements made by the witnesses, trial court held that it is proved that on 24.10.2014 at around 3:00 pm the present appellant outraged the modesty of prosecurix at a public place. 14. Therefore, taking a cumulative note of the facts and circumstance of the case, the statements of witnesses, the documents pre- sented by the prosecution, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the findings recorded by the trial Court convicting the ac- cused/appellant under Section 354(A)(2) of IPC are based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and deserve to be and are hereby maintained. 6 15. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial Court under Section 354(A)(2) of IPC appears to be excessively on the higher side and since more than 11 years have been elapsed, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone. The accused has remained behind bars for about 27 days. However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 16. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 17. The appellant is reported to be in on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of 6 months in light of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 18. The Trial Court record (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compli- ance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima