1 2025:CGHC:59681 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 428 of 2005 1 - Chuttu @ Sumiran Das, S/o Balam Das Manikpuri, aged about 20 years, R/o Latiyapara, Masturi, P.O. Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Meenu Banerjee, Advocate For Respondent / State : Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board 09/12/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) challenging judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.04.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (henceforth referred to as ‘Sessions Judge’) in Sessions Case No.451/2004, whereby the appellant / accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.12.16 10:34:57 +0530 2 (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 ½ years with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, 3 months’ additional imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that, on 02.11.2004 at about 1:30 pm, while white washing house of complainant, the appellant caught hold of minor girl aged about 5 years over the roof, took her to a corner, disrobed her, laid her on the floor, opened her panty and climbed on her, thereby he attempted rape upon minor victim. Thereafter, an FIR (Ex.P-2) was lodged by grandfather of victim against the appellant for the offence under Section 376/511 of the IPC in Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur. Spot maps (Ex.P-3 & P-4) were prepared by the police and patwari respectively. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet for the offence under Section 376/511 of the IPC was filed against the appellant. 3. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 376/511 of IPC against appellant, who abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 4. So as to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. Statement of the appellant / accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution claiming innocence. The appellant has not examined any witness in his defence. 5. After considering the evidence available on record, learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur convicted and sentenced the appellant, as has been stated in opening paragraph of this judgment. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred instant appeal. 6. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that the appellant does not want to press this appeal as 3 regards to the conviction part of the impugned judgment, rather she would confine her arguments to the sentence part thereof only. She would further submit that the appellant has been sentenced only for jail sentence of 3 ½ years. He already remained in jail from 03.11.2004 to 15.06.2005 i.e. 7 months & 12 days and the case is pending since 2004, therefore, she prays that the jail sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment, as also sentence part of the impugned judgment. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record along with record of the Court below. 9. Though learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not pressing the instant appeal on the conviction part of the impugned judgment but having considered occuler of evidence of victim (PW-5), who was minor girl aged about 5 years, which also gets support from deposition of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3, who are father, grandmother and grandfather of the victim respectively, it is found that learned Sessions Judge has not committed any mistake in convicting appellant for the offence under Section 376/511 of the IPC. Hence, conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 of the IPC is affirmed. 10. So far as the sentence part is concerned, the appellant has been sentenced jail sentence of 3 ½ years. This case is pending against appellant since 2004, at that time, he was 20 years old. The appellant already remained in jail during trial from 03.11.2004 till date of judgment dated 06.04.2005 and he was released on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.06.2005. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that after lapse of 20 years, no useful purpose 4 would be served in further sending the appellant behind the bar, rather ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Resultantly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment against the appellant is maintained and imposition of punishment of fine is also maintained, but jail sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e., from 03.11.2004 to 15.06.2005 (7 months & 12 days). 12. The appellant is said to be on bail. He needs not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant shall remain in operation for a further period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 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 Rukhsar