1 2026:CGHC:1994 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 472 of 2022 Kailash Gupta S/o Pitamber Gupta, Aged About 38 Years, R/o. Nayapara Ward, Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara Shahar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police of Police Station Bhatapara Shahar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. SavitaTiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Puria, Panel Lawyer SB:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board 1 3 /01/2026 1. This Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.1.2022 passed by the SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (CG) in Special Criminal Case No.H-21/2021, whereby the learned Special Court, after holding the appellant guilty, convicted him under Section 365 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 5 years and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with usual default stipulation. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.1.2021 at about 2:00 p.m., the appellant abducted the minor victim, aged about 8 years, with ill intent by gagging her. Upon the child screaming, her mother rushed out of the house, prompting the appellant to release her. The FIR was lodged by the father of the victim. 3. After usual investigation, the charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 354(A) and 365 of the IPC and Sections 8, 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “the POCSO Act”) was filed against the appellant before the concerned jurisdictional Court. 4. The Special Court framed charges under Section 354 (A) and 365 of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act against the appellant, who abjured his guilt and entered into trial. 5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution case and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the crime in question. He did not examine any witness in defence. 3 6. The Special Court, after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, but convicted and sentenced him for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 7. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant does not want to press this appeal with regard to the conviction part of the impugned judgment; rather she would confine her argument solely to the sentence part. She would further submit that the appellant was convicted to a maximum 5 years of rigorous imprisonment, of which he has already undergone about 2 ½ years. She also submit that apart from the present case, no other cases have been registered against the appellant. In view of the above fact, learned counsel for the appellant prays that the appellant’s jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel would support the impugned judgment of conviction as well as its sentence part. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record, including record of the Court below with utmost circumspection. 10. Although learned counsel for the appellant does not press the instant appeal regarding the conviction part of the impugned judgment, this Court has nonetheless considered the ocular evidence of the mother of the victim (PW-1), the victim (PW-2) and 4 the father of the victim (PW-6) and Satyendra Yadav {minor} (PW- 7). These witnesses have consistently deposed that on the date of the incident, the victim was abducted by the appellant. Moreover, the victim and her parents have deposed that the age of the victim was about 8 years on the date of the incident. Consequently, the finding recorded by the Special Court holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 365 of the IPC is hereby upheld. 11. So far as the sentence part is concerned, the appellant was sentenced to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine and default stipulation. Out of the said 5 years of jail sentence, the appellant has already undergone about 2½ years of incarceration. As per the Certificate issued by the Special Court under Section 428 of the Cr.PC, the appellant was arrested on 2.2.2021 and remained in custody until passing of the impugned judgment dated 6.1.2022. Subsequently, his jail sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 8.12.2022. However, as the appellant was unable to furnish the required surety, he could not be released. Thereafter, a modified order was passed by this Court on 7.8.2023, following which the appellant was released on bail. Consequently, the appellant has remained in jail for about 2 years, 6 months and 5 days. 12. Having considered the aforesaid facts and the attending circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in further sending the appellant behind bars; rather the ends of justice would be served if he is 5 sentenced to the period already served by him i.e. from 2.2.2021 to 7.8.2023. 13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment against the appellant is maintained. Fine part is also maintained. But jail sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him, as mentioned above. 14.The appellant is said to be on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by him shall remain in operation for a period of 06 months from today, in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 15. 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 Shyna