1 2025:CGHC:51690 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 787 of 2008  Prem Jain, son of Sukh Lal Jain, aged about 35 years, Occupation – Agriculturist, resident of village – Suraile, P.S. Korer, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Appellant versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station – Korer, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Afroj Khan, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment On Board 16/10/2025 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.07.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge (under S.C./S.T. Act), Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Special Case No. 16/2008 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 456, 354 of 2 IPC & sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 06 months with fine of Rs.500/- and R.I. for two months respectively, plus default stipulation. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Shyamlal (PW-2) lodged an FIR (Ex.P-2) in Police Station Korar to the effect that on 05.01.2008 at around 2.00 AM, Parmila Bai (PW-3) came to his house and told that accused/appellant Prem Jain had entered the house of prosecutrix (PW-1) with intent to outrage her modesty and she had locked the door from the outside. Thereafter, complainant Shyamlal (PW-2), Dular Gond, Jagat Gond went to the house of prosecutrix (PW-1), opened the door and saw that the accused/appellant was hiding behind a wooden beam and the Prosecutrix (PW-1) was also inside the house with her children. The villagers then apprehended the accused/appellant Prem Jain. On the basis of the said report, an FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered against the accused/appellant at Police Station – Korar and investigation was carried out. During investigation, police prepared spot map vide Ex.P-1. The accused/appellant was sent for medical examination to Primary Health Center, Korar vide Edx.P-8, where Dr. Sunil Bharti (PW-6) examined the accused/appellant and gave his report under Ex.P-7 opining that no any external injury was seen over his body. 3 Photocopy of temporary Caste certificate (Ex.P-9-C) of the prosecutrix (PW-1) was also seized. Patwari also prepared spot map vide Ex.P-3 and prepared panchanama vide Ex.P- 4. The statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P-5. After completion of usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker, from where the case was transferred to the Court of Special Judge. 3. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellant under Sections 456, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to which the accused/appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 08 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, while acquitting the appellant from the offence under 4 Section 3(1)(xi) of the S.C./S.T. Act, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant is bad, illegal and improper. The prosecution has failed to prove necessary ingredients constituting the offence under Section 456 and 354 of IPC, and has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate oral and documentary evidence properly. The statement of prosecutrix (PW-1), Shyamlal (PW-2), Parmila (PW-3) and Jagat (PW-5) are full of contradictions and omissions but the learned Trial Court recorded the perverse finding and convicted the appellant. So, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence may be set aside. In alternate, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident took place in the year 2008 i.e. about 17 years back, the appellant at the time of incident was aged around 35 years and by now he is aged around 52 years, he has already remained in jail for more than 80 days, the amendment to Section 354 of the IPC was came into effect from 03.02.2013, and before the amendment minimum sentence under this section was not prescribed for 5 term of one year, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him back to jail, therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the learned State counsel that conviction of the accused/appellant is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that it has framed charges under Sections 456, 354 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC/ST Act against the appellant & after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellant from the offence Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC/ST Act, convicted him under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC. 10. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that on the date of incident i.e. on 05.01.2008, when she was in her house, the accused/appellant entered her house and caught hold of her hands with intent to outrage her modesty. She yelled but no one could hear her noise due to night. She has also stated that her mother-in-law was sleeping in another room but she also did not hear her noise. The appellant had caught hold her down, then someone came and locked the room from 6 outside. Thereafter, her brother-in-law Shyam Lal (PW-2) came, raised alarm and called 4-5 persons from the vicinity and in front of them he opened the lock of her room which was locked by the wife (PW-3) of appellant. The appellant was hiding on the window of her room. She has also stated that thereafter the appellant was pulled out by the persons who came to her house and at that time her brother-in-law and many people of the locality were present. She has also stated that the appellant had entered her house with bad intention. She has also stated that the report was lodged by her brother-in-law Shyamlal (PW-2). In cross-examination, this witness denied this suggestion of defence that the appellant had come to talk with her mother-in-law. 11. The evidence of Prosecutrix (PW-1) is well corroborated by the evidence of her brother-in-law Shyamlal (PW-2), who has stated that on the date of incident, it was cold and after hearing the noise, he came out of his house at around 2:00 AM and saw that the appellant’s wife Parmilabai (PW-3) was coming from the house of the Prosecutrix (PW-1) after locking her room from outside. Thereafter, he asked her as to what had happened, then she said that she had locked the door because she had caught a thief inside. This witness has also stated that after that he called two men from the neighborhood, Dular and Jagat, and in front of 7 them he took the key from Parmilabai who had locked the room and opened the lock. Then after opening the door, he, Jagat and Dular went inside and searched for the accused and found that the appellant was sitting hidden on the beam of that room. He has also stated that when he asked the prosecutrix (PW-1) she told that the appellant entered her house forcibly with bad intention. 12. The prosecution has cross-examined these witnesses at length but has not been able to elicit anything in their cross- examination to discredit their testimonies especially to the fact that the appellant did not commit house trespass with intent to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix (PW-1). 13. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt and while acquitting the appellant from the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, held him guilty under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said findings recorded by the learned trial Court and therefore, the same is hereby affirmed. 14. The only question which arises for consideration by this Court is as to what would be the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon the accused/appellant. 8 15. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the fact that the incident took place in the year 2008 i.e. about 17 years back, the appellant at the time of incident was aged around 35 years and by now he is aged around 52 years, he has already remained in jail for more than 80 days, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail at this stage, and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the accused/appellant under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 17. In compliance of this Court’s order dated 22.08.2025, the appellant was arrested, and after his production before this court by the police personnel, he was sent back to jail, as such, at present he is languishing in jail. Thus, it is directed that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 18. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which 9 shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that 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. 19. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE