1 2025:CGHC:5075 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 430 of 2021 Jashoda Singh@ Yashoda W/o Krishna Yadav (Poda) Aged About 29 Years R/o Duajhar, Police Station : Rajkhariyar, District- Nuyapara (Orissa). Present Address -Manish Sindhi, Shree Nagar, Gudhiyari, Near Shiv Mandir, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S.- Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Advocate (Legal Aid) For Respondent-State : Ms. Binu Sharma, PL. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 28.01.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 22.02.2021, passed in ST No.30/2020 by learned Session Judge, Rajnandgaon, (CG), whereby appellant stands convicted and sentence as 2 under :- Conviction Sentence U/s 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years & fine of amount Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine 03 months additional RI. U/s 365 of IPC RI for 07 years & fine of amount Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine 03 months additional RI. Both sentences run concurrently 2. The present appeal was filed on 17.03.2021. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant in pre-lunch session when the matter was called out for hearing, therefore, I requested for assistance from a Counsel of the High Court Legal Services Committee. Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Advocate is nominated to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.08.2020, appellant took the Gaiman Sahu (child of the complainant Madhu Sahu, aged about 01 years 9 months) from his house and going on the road towards Kokpur. On the way, some villagers namely (Guman Sahu, Dhaniram Patel Neelkhanth Nandeswar, Pawan Kore) restrained the appellant and on suspicion they interrogated her, they are having doubt that the child which she was hiding in her veil, 3 belong to their village and is son of Madhu Sahu. Thereafter, incident was report to the concerned Police Station and based upon report lodged by Madhu Sahu (complainant), FIR was registered against the appellant and she was arrested. 4. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against him. 5. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 09 witnesses. Statement of appellant (accused) was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by him in his defence. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforementioned offence/crime. There is no specific evidence/material available to connect the appellant with 4 crime in question. There are many contradiction and omission in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which were not considered properly by the trial Court. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant herein is liable be acquitted/discharged from the aforementioned charge/offence. Alternatively, it is argued that if the Court finds that alleged incident/offence has been committed by the appellant, then considering her detention i.e, since 21.08.2020 and the fact that she is not having any previous criminal incident, the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by her. 8. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of material and evidence available on record and the same requires no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 10. With regard to the alleged incident, it has been stated by PW-7/Dhaniram (villager) in his Court statement that on the alleged date of incident, he was buying the rice at ration 5 shop, some villagers told him that an unknown woman has hiding a child and taking her towards Kokpur, than he alongwith other villages namely Guman Sahu, Pawan, Neelkanth etc, restrained the appellant/accused and recovered the Gaiman Sahu (child of the Madhu Sahu) from her. The evidence of this witness is also supported by the PW/4/Neelkhanth Nandeswar, PW-6/Pawan Kumar. 11. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, particularly evidence of PW-7/Dhaniram, PW/4/Neelkhanth Nandeswar, PW-6/Pawan Kumar (villagers), has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for aforementioned offence. 12. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering the fact that appellant is a lady aged about 29 years, she is in jail since 21.08.2020 and thereby she has already served more than 04 years of jail sentence, this Court is of the opinion that sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant (RI for 07 years) appears to be on higher side. So keeping in 6 view all the circumstances, mentioned above, ends of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon appellants is reduced from RI 07 years to RI 06 years. 13. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellant under aforementioned offence, the sentence imposed upon her by trial Court is reduced from RI for 07 years to RI 06 years. However, fine amount imposed on appellant is remain intact. 14. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-