1 2025:CGHC:59983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 369 of 2022 Shiva Bharti S/o Gautram Bharti Aged About 19 Years R/o Satnami Para, Kota, Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, Police Station Saraswati Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 10/12/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2021 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) in Session Case No.194/2021, whereby the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, after holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner:- BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.12.11 17:42:54 +0530 2 Sl. No. Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 01. 363 IPC RI for 03 years Rs.100/- RI for 15 days 02. 366 IPC RI for 03 years Rs.100/- RI for 15 days 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.9.2020 minor victim (PW-1) left her house without informing her family members, therefore, her father (PW-4) lodged FIR (Ex-P/13) against unknown person for the offence under Section 363 IPC in Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Distt. Raipur. The victim was recovered from the possession of the appellant on 22.9.2020 vide recovery memo Ex-P/16. Statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC was got recorded vide Ex-P/2 from concerned JMFC. Since the victim was minor, her marksheet of Class-VIII (Article A) was seized vide seizure memo Ex-P/8. Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex-P/5C) pertaining to the victim of Govt. New Middle School, Kota was seized from Incharge Headmaster Lalit Kumar Tikriha (PW-2). Spot map was prepared vide Ex-P/7 and statement of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC was filed against the appellant before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, thereafter the case was transferred to Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. 3. The learned Third Additional Sessions Judge framed charges for the offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC against the appellant, who abjured the guilt and entered into trial. 4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents along with one Article (marksheet). Examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was 3 recorded, in which the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, claiming himself to be innocent and false implication. No defence witness has been examined by the appellant. 5. After completion of the trial, the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, and sentenced him as has been mentioned in the opening paragraph. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred instant appeal. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the appellant does not want to press this appeal as regards to the conviction part of the impugned judgment, rather he would confine his argument only to the sentence part. He further submits that the appellant remained in jail during trial from the date of his arrest 23.9.2020 till 30.9.2020 i.e. about 08 days. He further submits that there is no criminal antecedent reported against the appellant and this is the first crime registered against him, hence, it is prayed that the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment of conviction, as also the sentence part of the judgment. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the record of the Court below with utmost circumspection. 9. Though learned counsel for the appellant is not pressing instant appeal on the conviction part of the impugned judgment, but having considered the deposition of the victim (PW-1), her father (PW-4), her mother (PW-5) and further considering the evidence of Incharge Headmaster (PW-2) 4 and school record of the victim, it is found that the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any mistake in convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 363 & 366 IPC, hence, conviction of the appellant for aforesaid offence is upheld. 10. So far as the sentence part is concerned, the appellant is a young boy, aged about 19 years. The victim has stated that she went with the appellant of her own free will and the appellant did not misuse her. The appellant was in jail during trial from 23.9.2020 till 30.9.2020, there is no criminal antecedent reported against the appellant. Having considered the totality of the case and further sending the appellant behind the bar is not found to be appropriate as no criminal antecedent apart from this case, has been proved against the appellant, therefore, it is found that ends of justice would be served if the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 23.9.2020 to 30.9.2020. 11. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment against the appellant for the offence under Sections 363 & 366 IPC is maintained. Fine part is also maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him, as mentioned above. 12. The appellant is said to be on bail. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with record of the concerned Court below be transmitted forthwith for compliance and needful, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini