1 2025:CGHC:55098 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.901 of 2003 1 - Ratan Gujrati, S/o Shri Manji Gujrati, aged about 45 years, R/o Dhari Parampara, Near Bus Stand Amreli, PS Amreli, District Amreli, Gujrat Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 12/11/2025 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Session Trial No.15/2003, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.25,000/- with default Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that when the prosecutrix was going to dispose off a dead rat towards a bye-lane and was coming back, an unknown person, who was the accused, came over the place, got hold of her and took her near Bhargapara Talab and further took her towards bus stand, she was made to sleep on the ground, her underwear was removed and he tried to perform obscene work, however hearing her scream, another person came over there and the accused was taken to the village where the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother. Thereafter the matter was reported to the concerned police station upon which a case was registered against the accused and he was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the Magistrate concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly in the statements of PW-1 Sonu Singh and PW-2 Neeraj Meshra, hence prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 3 Alternatively, He submits that the incident took place in the year 2002, this appeal is pending since 2003, the appellant remained in jail for about 9 months and presently he is aged about 67 years of age, therefore, the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 read with Section 511 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 363, 366 and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. PW-6 prosecutrix stated that when she had gone to dispose off the dead rat, the accused came there and forcefully took her near 4 pond and laid her down on the ground and removed her underwear and tried to commit rape on her. When she screamed, he put her finger on her lips, then one person namely Ritesh came there and started beating the accused and took her to village and she narrated the entire incident to her mohter, thereafter she went along with her mother to police station and lodged the report against the accused. In her cross-examination, she admitted that on her screaming, two persons came there and beaten the accused, thereafter she went to her home rashly and after half an hour, the said two persons took the accused to the village, thereafter she narrated the entire incident to her mother. She remained firm in her cross-examination. 8. PW-10 Punnulal stated that on the date of incident, when he was going, he saw the accused trying to do wrong thing with the prosecutrix and seeing him, the accused tried to flee away, upon which the persons over there caught the accused. He remained firm in her cross-examination. The other material witnesses have also stated against the appellant. Thus, the learned Trial Court has also minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. 9. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2002, this appeal is pending since 2003, the appellant remained in jail for about 9 months and presently he is aged about 67 years of age, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by 5 him. Accordingly, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10. The appeal is partly allowed. 11. Since the appellant after granting bail by this Court is absconding, therefore, the bail bond earlier submitted by the appellant shall remain operative for a period of 6 months in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023 and in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala