1 2026:CGHC:1267 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 435 of 2005 1 - Sukalu S/o Shyamlal Aged About 32 Years Occupation Agriculture R/o Village Tarjunga P.S. Rajim District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Nand Kumar S/o Shobha Aged About 35 Years Occupation Agriculture R/o Village Tarjunga P.S. Rajim District - Raipur (C.G. ) 3 - Tejram (Abated) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 10-03-2025 4 - Santosh S/o Radheshyam Aged About 27 Years Occuption Agriculture R/o Village Tarjunga P.S. Rajim District - Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Awadhram S/o Bhukuram Aged About 30 Years Occuption Agriculture R/o Village Tarjunga P.S. Rajim District - Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Induru S/o Tangu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Tarjunga P.S. Rajim District - Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Dashoda Bai W/o Mannu Lal Aged About 35 Years Occuption House Wife R/o Village Tarjunga P.S. Rajim District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajim O.P Fingeshwar District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aishwary Diwan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilang, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 08/01/2026 1. It is respectfully submitted that during the pendency of the present criminal appeal, the appellant, namely, Nand Kumar has died, as reflected from the order-sheet dated 10.03.2025. Consequently, the present appeal to the extent of the said deceased appellant stands abated in accordance with law. 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2005 passed by XIIIth Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 33/2005, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in following manner :- CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months. 3 Under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months. Under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months. (All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently) 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the incident occurred on 25.11.2004 at about 8:00 p.m. The victim Anusuya Bai, her husband Govind, and Puslal and Rumelal were stacking paddy bags in the courtyard adjacent to their house. At that time, the accused Sukalu and Nand Kumar arrived and called Govind outside. When the victim objected, the accused persons started hurling obscene abuses at her. Apprehending trouble, the victim along with her husband Govind and Puslal and Rumelal went inside the house. Thereafter, the accused Nand Kumar and Sukalu forcibly entered the house and continued abusing the victim in filthy language. Meanwhile, the accused Dashodabai also entered the house and caught hold of the hair of the victim and dragged her. 4. It is further alleged that the accused, Nand Kumar, with an intention to outrage the modesty of the victim and to commit rape, forcibly pulled her saree and blouse, pressed her breasts, threw her on the ground and attempted to commit rape. At the same 4 time, the other accused, namely, Tejram, Santosh and Awadhram also entered the house and, in furtherance of their common object, assaulted the victim and the other injured persons with lathi, chappal, fists and kicks. The prosecution further alleges that all the accused persons assaulted Govind, Puslal and Rumelal and extended threats to kill them, thereby committed criminal intimidation. It is specifically alleged that the victim, being a woman, was subjected to physical assault and her clothes were torn, thereby causing insult to her modesty. 5. On the basis of the report lodged by the victim, Anusuya Bai on 26.11.2004 at Police Station Rajim, an offence was registered against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323/149, 506, 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gariyaband, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial in accordance with law. 6. Thereafter, statement of accused persons were recorded, wherein all the aforesaid accused persons have denied the charges levelled against them and have claimed to be tried. In their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them as deposed by the prosecution witnesses. In defence, it was stated that due to factional rivalry in the village, a false report has been lodged 5 against them and that the prosecution witnesses have given false testimony in order to falsely implicate them. The accused persons claimed their innocence. In support of their defence, they examined Ramadhin (DW-1) and Khorbahra (DW-2) as defence witnesses. 7. The learned XIIIth Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur (C.G.) after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide impugned judgment dated 03.05.2005 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been filed by the appellants. 8. Learned counsel for appellants submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and is confining his argument to the quantum of sentence only. He further submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and a compromise deed dated 08.03.2016 has been filed on 08.01.2026 through covering memo, which is on record. He also submits that the learned trial Court has sentenced the appellants for two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 of IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 of IPC and as the appellants have already suffered jail sentence (appellants, namely, Sukalu and Nand Kumar – 5 months and 25 days, appellants, namely, Santosh, Awadhram and Induru – 1 month and 9 days, and appellant, namely, Dashoda Bai – 33 days) and have already 6 deposited the fine amount imposed by the trial Court, therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may suffice to meet the ends of justice. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 9. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that though the compromise has been entered between the parties, but the offence in question i.e. under Section 452 and 147 of IPC are not compoundable, hence the appeal be decided on its merit. She further submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 11. Though learned counsel for appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and confined his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the trial Court. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 12. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of witnesses, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellants herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that the appellants are guilty for offence punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 452 of IPC. 7 13. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the fact that the appellants have already suffered jail sentence (appellants, namely, Sukalu and Nand Kumar – 5 months and 25 days, appellants, namely, Santosh, Awadhram and Induru – 1 month and 9 days, and appellant, namely, Dashoda Bai – 33 days) and have already deposited the fine amount imposed by the trial Court, further considering the agony of criminal trial faced by the appellants for several years, the sentence already undergone by them may suffice to meet the ends of justice. So this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded to the appellants are reduced to the period already undergone by them. 14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellants under Sections 147, 323 and 452 of IPC are hereby affirmed. Sentence imposed upon the appellants under aforementioned Sections are hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them. 15. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil