1 2025:CGHC:20737 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 166 of 2007 Narendra Kumar @ Chhotu S/o shri Bhagwat Verma, aged about 19 years, R/o Village- Surajpura, P.S. Bhatapara Gramin, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station- Bhatapara Gramin, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent/State _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate. For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, GA. For Complainant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 06.05.2025 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 24.02.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District- Raipur (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 405/2006, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 376 (1) of R.I. for 07 years and with fine amount Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 the IPC of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 year. Under Section 450 of IPC R.I. for 07 years and with fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 year. (Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently) 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.08.2006 at about 8:30 pm when the prosecutrix (PW-1), aged about 16 years was washing the utensils at her courtyard, at that time the appellant entered the house and took the prosecutrix towards Tactor Kholi, where he committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, he vanished from the place of incident. The grandfather viz. Tanaram saw him when he was fleeing away from the spot. Thereafter the prosecutrix narrated the whole incident to her parents, grandfather and neighbours. On the next day i.e., 21.08.2006, the prosecutrix lodged report (Ex.P/1) at the Police Station- Bhatapara which was duly registered as Crime No. 161/2006 for the commission of alleged offence punishable under Sections 376 and 450 of IPC. During the investigation, prosecutrix was sent for medical examination, her statement was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. the appellant was arrested on 22.08.2006, appellant was also sent for medical examination, spot map was prepared and statements of all the witnesses were recorded. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Classs, Bhatapara, thereafter the matter was committed to the learned 3 Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) and after registration of the Sessions Trial No. 405/2006, the appellant was put to trial for the offences punishable under Sections 450 & 376 (1) of IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellants examined as many as 14 witnesses, Prosecutrix (PW-1), father of the prosecutrix (PW-2), grandfather of the prosecutrix (PW-3), Dr. Sushma Maheswari (PW-4), Ramnarayan Sahu (PW-5), Udayram (PW-6), Dr. Ashok Tiwari (PW-7), Islam Khan (PW-8), Raju @ Chutkula (PW-9), Prahlad Verma (PW-10), Naresh Kumar Verma (PW-11), Bhagwati Prasad (PW-12), S. N. Sidar (PW-13) and Rikhiram Verma (PW-14). The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded hi innocence and false implication in this case. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considered the material available on record has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that complainant has filed an I.A. No.03/2025, dated 24.04.2025 along with her affidavit to compound the offence and reduce the sentence to the period already undergone on the basis of compromise. He further submits that the appellant and the complainant/victim married in the month of April, 2010 and they are 4 living peacefully as husband and wife since the date of marriage and out of their wedlock they have two children, the first one was born on 07.07.2011 female child and second, a male child was born on 09.05.2013. Furthermore, out of maximum sentence of 7 years, the appellant has already remained in jail for more than 05 months. The incident occurred in the year 2006 and since the appellant is facing the lis. Therefore, considering all these facts, the jail sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baldev Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2011)13 SCC 705 and upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Sanjay Bachad vs. State of Chhattisgarh, passed in CRA No. 223 of 2007. 7. Ex-adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant, however the offence under Sections 450 & 376 of IPC is non-compoundable, thus the application for compromise and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1), her father (PW-2) and also the statement of her grandfather (PW-3), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court as regards the 5 conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 450 & 376 (1) of IPC, which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 10. The prosecutrix/complainant has filed an I.A. No. 03/2025 for compounding the offence along with her affidavit, in which it is mentioned that during the pendency of this appeal, the prosecutrix has settled her dispute with the appellant and got married with appellant. Out of their wedlock, they have two children and they are living together peacefully. Therefore, the prosecutrix wants to close the case against the appellant. 11. Though the appellant and the prosecutrix/complainant entered into a compromise, the offences are not compoundable and therefore, I.A. No. 03 is dismissed. 12. As regards sentence part, the Supreme Court in the matter of Baldev Singh and others vs. State of Punjab1 4. Section 376 is a non-compoundable offence. However, the fact that the incident is an old one, is a circumstance for invoking the proviso to Section 376(2)(g) and awarding a sentence of less than 10 years, which is ordinarily the minimum sentence under that provision, as we think that there are adequate and special reasons for doing so. 5. On the facts of the case, considering that the incident happened in the year 1997 and that the parties have themselves entered into a compromise, we uphold the conviction of the appellant but we reduce the sentence to the period of sentence already undergone by in view of the 1 (2011)13 SCC 705 6 proviso to Section 376(2)(g) which for adequate and special reasons permits imposition of a lesser sentence…...” 13. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) and taking into consideration the fact that the parties have themselves entered into compromise, the victim/ complainant has married to the appellant and they have two children from their wedlock and also considering the fact that the appellant is facing lis since 2006, i.e., about 19 years and he has already remained in jail for more than 05 months, the conviction of the appellant is maintained, but the jail sentence awarded to the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 450 & 376(1) of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount and its stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 15. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 16. The Trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL