1 2025:CGHC:59962 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 32 of 2022 Ram Singh S/o Late Somar Sai Gond Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Tiwragadhi (Chhaparpara), P.S. Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Incharge P.S. Ramanujnagar (Shrinagar), District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Puriya, 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 10.12.2021 passed by Upper Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Surajpur Distt. Surajpur (CG) in Special Session Case No.15/2019, whereby the learned Upper Sessions Judge, after holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner:- Sl. No. Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 01. 457 IPC RI for 01 year Rs.500/- RI for 04 months BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.12.11 17:26:51 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 16.02.2019 at about 12 o’clok in the night, the appellant went to the house of the complainant (PW-2) with intention to molest the complainant/her minor daughter (PW-1). On hearing the scream of the minor daughter of the complainant, the complainant woke up and she chased the appellant. Hearing the scream, brother-in-law of the complainant also came there and they caught the appellant. Based on the above facts, FIR (Ex-P/1) was registered in Police Station Ramanujnagar, Distt. Surajpur against the appellant for the offence under Sections 457 and 354 of IPC and Section 08 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’). After usual investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Sections 457 and 354 IPC and Section 08 of the POCSO Act has been filed against the appellant before Fast Track Special Court, Surajpur. 3. The learned Fast Track Special Court framed charges for the offence under Sections 457, 354 IPC and Section 08 of the POCSO Act against the appellant, who abjured the guilt and entered into trial. 4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents along with two Articles. Examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was 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 Fast Track Special Court as acquitted of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, granting him the benefit of doubt. However, he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 457 IPC, and sentenced 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 till 11.6.2019 i.e. about 115 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 PW-1, who is daughter of the complainant, deposition of complainant Manmati (PW-2), Shyam (PW-8), husband of the complainant, who have stated in their deposition that the appellant was caught red handed in their house at night, therefore, it is found that the learned Fast Track Special Court has not committed any mistake in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 457 IPC, hence, conviction of the appellant for aforesaid offence is upheld. 10. So far as the sentence part is concerned, the appellant has been awarded one year jail sentence and fine of Rs.500/- for aforesaid offence. 4 The fine amount has been deposited by the appellant. Since no other criminal antecedent has been found in the record and the appellant remained in jail from the date of his arrest i.e. 18.02.2019 to 11.6.2019, as per the certificate prepared by the Fast Track Special Court under Section 428 of the CrPC, no useful purpose would be served in further sending the appellant behind the bar, rather ends of justice would be served, if his jail sentence is reduced from one year to the period already served by him, i.e. from 18.02.2019 to 11.6.2019. 11. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment against the appellant for the offence under Section 457 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