1 2026:CGHC:1843 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 712 of 2005 1 - Shatrughan Dhiwar Son of Panchram Dhiwar, age 22 years, resident of Village Pondi, Police Station, Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title as taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Rupesh Trivedi, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board 13/01/2026 1. Heard. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment of conviction and order RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.01.14 14:53:18 +0530 2 of sentence dated 30.08.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (henceforth referred to as ‘trial Court) in Sessions Case No.381/2004, whereby the appellant / accused has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner : S. No. CONVICTION SENTENCE 1. Under Section 450 of IPC : R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 3 months. 2. Under Section 354 of IPC : R.I. for one year 3. Under Section 323 of IPC : R.I. for six months. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief, is that, on 29.08.2004 at about 07:30 a.m. when the victim PW-8 was alone in her house, the appellant trespassed her house, and tried to molest, and while trying to outrage her modesty, threatened to kill her and caused simple injuries. On being cried for help by the victim, the appellant escaped away from her house. Hameed Hussain (PW-2) and Sheikh Ji (PW-4) have seen that the appellant was running away from the house of the victim. FIR (Ex.P/7) was lodged by the victim at Police Station, Seepat against the appellant under Sections 450, 376, 511, 323 and 506(b) of IPC. After usual investigation charge-sheet under Sections 450, 376, 511, 323 and 506 of IPC was filed against the appellant before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class, who committed the case to the 3 Session Judge. Thereafter, the case was tried by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. 4. Charges under Sections 450, 376/511, 506(b) and 323 of IPC were framed against appellant/accused, who abjured the guilt and entered into trial. 5. So as to bring home the charges the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents, statement of the appellant 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 himself to be innocent and falsely implicated. He has not examined any witness in his support. 6. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant for the offence under Sections 376/511 and 506(b) of IPC but convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that he does not want to press this appeal as regards to the conviction part of the impugned judgment, rather he would confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. He would further submit that maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is two years. The appellant was remained in Jail from 30.09.2004 to 29.10.2004 during trial. This case is pending against him since 2004 and at the time of incident, age of appellant was about 22 4 years, therefore, he prays that the jail sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel not only supports the impugned judgment of conviction rather she also supports the sentence part of the judgment. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including record of the Court below. 10. Though learned counsel for the appellant is not pressing the instant appeal on the conviction part of the impugned judgment, but having considered the deposition of victim (PW-8), Hameed Hussain (PW-2) & Sheikh Ji (PW-4), as also statement of Dr. Rajesh Kumar (PW-5) and Dr. Nilima Sharma (PW-6), who have medically examined the victim, it is found that learned Sessions Judge has not committed any mistake in holding appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 450, 354 and 323 of IPC. Hence, conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 354 and 323 of IPC is affirmed. 11. So far as the sentence part is concerned, maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is two years and all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. This case is pending since 2004. As per certificate prepared by learned Sessions Judge, under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., the appellant remained in Jail during trial from 30.09.2004 to 29.10.2004 and at the time of incident the 5 age of appellant was 22 years. Both the parties are residents of Village Podi, Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 12. Having considered the aforesaid facts and other attending circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant behind the bar, rather ends of justice would be served, if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e. from 30.09.2004 to 29.10.2004. 13. In the result, 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 as has been mentioned above. 14. 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. 15. Record of the concerned Court below along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and needful, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi