1 2025:CGHC:6413 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 761 of 2019 1 - Chitrekha Sahu D/o Kanhaiya Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Amaldih, Police Station And Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms.Pushplata Khalko, Pl (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 04/02/2025 The present revision arises out of the impugned order and judgment dated 30.05.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli in Cr. Appeal No. 07/2015 whereby the learned appellate Court below has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused/applicant as awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate first Class, Lormi vide its judgment dated 21.01.2015 in Cr. Case No. 2 25/2012 for the offence under Section 317/34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years with fine of Rs. 3,000/- plus default stipulation. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that police of the police station Lormi lodged a complaint against four persons namely Chit Rekha Sahu- the present applicant, Komal Prasad Patel, Himia Bai and Injia Bai for the offence under Sections 317 and 34 IPC alleging that they have abandoned and exposed a new born baby (infant). The said infant was given birth by the present applicant Chit Rekha and the co-accused Komal Prasad Patel outside the wedlock whereas the other accused persons have helped the main accused in concealing the birth of infant. After completion of investigation, the charges were framed against the applicants under Section 317/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years with fine of Rs. 3,000/- each with default stipulation. 3. So as to prove the guilt of the accused/applicant, the prosecution has examined 07 witnesses. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which she denied the charges leveled against her and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.05.2019, learned Magistrate has convicted the accused/applicant for the offence under Section 317/34 of the IPC and has sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation. This order was appealed by the applicant and in the appeal, learned appellate Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant under Section 317/34 Cr.P.C. Hence, the present revision. 3 5. Counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the trial court is bad in law and is not sustainable. He submits that the crime against the accused/applicant does not cover the provisions under Section 317 IPC as the prosecution was not able to establish that the deserted infant was born on account of the relationship between her and the co-accused Komal Prasad Patel. He submits that the trial court has not observed the case in its proper perspective and therefore the order may be set aside. He further submits that the evidence led by the prosecution was not reliable as none of the the witnesses have stated that fact of love affair between the applicant and co-accused Komal Prasad Patel. It is submitted that the prosecution might have examined the parenthood of the child through medical examination but the same was not done. 6. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the accused has admitted that she had given birth to the infant. At the time of her medical examination conducted by Dr. Pramila Dau (PW-6) Community Health Centre, Lormi, she was found bleeding. The documents Ex.P-7 and P-8 established that the accused was biological mother of the deceased child. The onus to prove that the accused had not abandoned the deceased child had shifted to the accused herself to which the accused has stated that it is the co-accused Komal Prasad who had advised her to abandon the infant near the bushes. Thus, the prosecution has proved the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 317 and 34 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing the revision as far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According 4 to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2011 and thereby more than 14 years have rolled by since then, the applicant has already remained in jail for about 1 month 10 days, no useful purpose would be served in again sending her to jail, therefore it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on her is reduced to the period already undergone by her. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 7. In view of above, the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2011 and further that the applicant has already remained in jail for about 1 month 10 days, the revision is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Applicant is reported to have remained in jail for a period of 1 month 10 days, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by her. 8. Revision thus partly succeeds. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.05.08 11:40:12 +0530