2025:CGHC:54402 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 962 of 2025 1 - Dhaneshwer S/o Bachhu Ram, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Piyuri, Uparpara P.S. Ramanujnagar District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Ramanujnagar, District -Sura- jpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Pranav Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 07/11/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.09.2024, passed in Sessions Trial No. 27/2020, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Surajpur, District Surajpur, (CG), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Sections Sentenced to 354A(1)(i) of the I.P.C. R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment fine, addi- tional R.I. for one month Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.11.12 11:24:43 +0530 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that on 23.04.2020 at about 04:00 pm in village Tiwragudi, Police Station Ramanujnagar, Dis- trict Surajpur, while the victim was returning after filing water, the appellant pressed her chest and asked her to come towards the forest. Thereby he outrage her modesty. Based upon the said re- port, on 24.04.2020 FIR was registered against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 354A(1)(i) of IPC. On comple- tion of investigation, final report/charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the trial Court. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 07 wit- nesses. Statements of appellant (accused) was also recorded un- der Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evi- dence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false impli- cation. However, no evidence was adduced by him in his defence. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment con- victed the appellant under Section 354A(1)(i) of IPC and sen- tenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described above of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. The appellant was in custody from 31.05.2020 to 03.07.2020, from 22.02.2021 to 26.02.2021 and 06.08.2024 to 28.09.2024 (to- tal 91 days. He was in jail from the date of judgment till today (total 13 months and 10 days. 7. Today Father of the victim appeared before this Court through VC and has raised no objection in releasing the appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are contradic- tions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution wit- nesses, especially regarding the location, timing and nature of the alleged act. He further submits that the conviction is primarily based on the sole testimony of the victim, without any corroborat- ing evidence. The medical evidence does not establish any injury. Moreover, the FIR is silent on material facts which later appeared in deposition. He further submits that although the father of the vic- tim was allegedly nearby during the incident, he neither saw the act nor immediately intervened. No independent or eyewitness corroborates the prosecution story. The trial Court ought to have disbelieve the statement given by witnsses, as they are related witnesses. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the testi- monies of prosecution witnesses are not reliable and charges are not proved by the prosecution. From the plain reading of the FIR, it gives the conclusion that the matter got converted to junk the per- sonal grudge through police machinery by exercising the benefit of caste. The judgment of the trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned trial Court ought not to have convicted and sen- tenced the appellant and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Court below failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. There are material contradic- tions and omissions in the statement of the complainant. Alterna- tively, he submits that the trial Court has awarded the sentence of RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 354A(1)(i) of IPC. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, learned counsel for appel- lants submits that the appellant at present is aged about 25 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2020 and the appellant has already undergone more than 16 months and 11 days awarded by the trial Court in 354A(1)(i) of IPC. There is also no previous crimi- nal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already un- dergone by them. Learned counsel for appellant placed his re- liance upon the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the matters of Ajay Kumar Sarthi V. State of Chhattis- garh in CRA No. 243 of 2022, Pritam Patel Vs. State of Chhat- tisgarh in CRA No. 903 of 2015 and Yogendra Singh Markam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 1760 of 2022, the Cor-or- dinate Bench has reduced the sentence to the period already un- dergone, and therefore, similar relief may be extended to the ap- pellants herein as well. 10.Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, would submit that the prosecution has been able to prove the offences beyond reason- able doubt and the conviction of the appellant is well merited and needs no interference. As such, the appeal deserves to be dis- missed. 11.Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the recorded placed on record. 12.Victim (PW-1) stated in her deposition that on the date of incident, while returning after taking water from the tap, the accused Dhaneshwar caught hold of her chest and asked her to come to- wards the forest. Thereafter the accused ran away from there and she herself went home and after going home informed her parents about the incident and then her father went to the house of the ac- cused and next day she and her father lodged the report f the inci- dent. 13.From the prosecution evidence, the fact is proved beyond doubt that on the date of the incident, the accused/appellant with the in- tention to outrage the modesty of the victim and had pressed her chest and asked her to come towards the forest, therefore the ac- cused committed sexual assault on a minor girl and the accused person had used criminal force against her will. 14.In our considered opinion, the act of the appellant was deliberately done with the manifest intention to commit the offence aimed and was reasonably proximate to the consummation of the offence. No case is made out pointing out perversity in the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for committing the offence under Sections 354A(1)(i) of IPC and the conviction of the appellant is hereby maintained. 15.Now considering the question of sentence. As the appellant is fac- ing criminal trial since 2020 and thereafter more than 5 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the appellant at present and there is no previous criminal antecedent of the appellant and fur- ther considering that the appellant has already undergone 13 months and 11 days of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 27/2020 and there would be no useful purpose to remain the appellant in jail as he has already suffered under- gone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 3 years under Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC to the period already undergone by the appellant i.e. 13 months and 11 days of jail sentence. However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 16.It is reported that the appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other cases. 17.The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 18. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Jyoti