1 2025:CGHC:928 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 250 of 2011 1 - Deendayal Gabel, S/o Photulal Gabel, aged about 22 years, resident of Bhuvalpur, P.S. Kunda, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Police Station Mungali, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Judgment on Board 03/01/2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.03.2011 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mungali, District Bilaspur C.G. (for short ‘Trial Court’) in Session Trial No.12/2010 by which the trial Court has held the appellant guilty of commission of offence and sentenced him as described below:- Sn. Conviction Sentence 1. Under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 2 months. 2 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 02.02.2010 at about 02:00 PM prosecutrix lodged report at P.S. Mungali alleging that she is the student of Class 9th. When she was going to school along with her friends, at that time appellant came on motorcycle and held the hand of prosecutrix (PW-1) with intention to marry her and took her away with himself at Lormi. The incident narrated to the sister of prosecutrix by friends of prosecutrix. After some time appellant took the prosecutrix to Village Padotara. The matter was reported to the police Station Mungali and after investigation police filed chargesheet before the competent Court. Prosecution examined 08 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents to prove its case. Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 363 of IPC and sentence as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has committed an error of law in convicting the appellant for the above stated offence and sentence him without any cogent evidence. He further submits that There was a cordial and loving relationship between the appellant and the victim. The victim voluntarily accompanied herself, therefore, the appellant’s conviction cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. In the event, the appellant remained in jail for 31 days and looking to the long pendency of the appeal, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. He further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case bearing CRR No.630 of 2014 (Pardesi @ Bablu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 30.07.2024 in which this Court had reduced the Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months to undergo the period of 30 days of jail sentence by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.200/- to Rs.5,000/-. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that the statement of prosecutrix and her friend Deepika (PW-2) clearly establishes the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, 3 therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and peruse the documents available on record. 6. The prosecutrix examined herself as PW-1 as well as her friend Deepika (PW- 2) have vividly described the happening of the incident and she has categorically stated that when she along with her friend going to school then the appellant came there and threatened her by pouring kerosene over his body and appall to lit him on fire. He forced her to accompanied him by sitting on his motorcycle and after some time he left her to her home. The Statement of prosecutrix was also corroborated by her friend Deepika (PW-2) who also deposed in the same line. The trial Court after due appreciation of these evidence found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 363. In the opinion of this Court, the findings recorded by the trial Court does not appear to be perverse or contrary to evidence available on record. Hence the conviction of appellant is hereby maintained. 7. Now the question is with regard to sentence to be imposed upon the appellant. The incident has occurred on 02.02.2010 and the appellant remained in jail for about 31 days, the age of the appellant was about 22 years at the time of incident. It is not a case that the appellant has made any physical harm to victim. The appellant was granted bail by the trial Court, after his conviction his sentence was also suspended by this Court. It is not brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant has any criminal antecedent, while he was on bail, he misused the liberty or involved in any other offence and also the freedom of the appellant is detrimental to the society. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Pardesi @ Bablu (supra), this Court is inclined to allow this appeal in part by reducing the sentence from 4 R.I. for 3 years under Section 363 of the IPC, to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 31 days of jail sentence. However, in addition to fine amount of Rs.1000/-, fine amount of Rs.3000/- is imposed upon the appellant failing which he would be liable to undergo for R.I. of One month. Total amount of Rs.4000/- shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of four months from today before the concerned trial Court. Fine, if any, deposited by the appellant before the trial Court be adjusted accordingly. Rs.2.000/- out of total fine amount shall be paid to prosecutrix (PW-1) as compensation under Section 395 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘B.N.S.S.’). Ordered accordingly. 9. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance. 10. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed in part. CC as per rules. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Saxena