1 CGHC010027252016 2026:CGHC:28289 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 959 of 2016 Rajkumar Kumhar S/o Jogeshwar Kumhar Aged About 50 Years R/o Bombay House No.54, 56 Nehru Nagar East, Police Station- Supela, Tahsil, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh … Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Collector, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2026 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 219/2014 by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) partly allowed the appeal, and modified the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Case No. 273/2013 wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 500/- further, in default of payment of fine amount, one month simple imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.05.2013, at about 11:00 p.m., the applicant was coming out of his house. While crossing the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.13 11:03:24 +0530 2 staircase, he allegedly caught hold of the complainant and attempted to outrage her modesty. The matter was reported at Police Station Supela, pursuant to which Crime No. 368/2013 was registered. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the competent Court against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned Trial Court recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and, on the basis of the material available on record, found the applicant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, vide judgment dated 28.07.2014, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned hereinabove. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.07.2014, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Court of the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.). The appellate Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 24.09.2016, partly allowed the appeal and modified the conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the material on record and thus, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment itself is bad in law. Learned counsel emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant has already undergone 24 days of jail sentence. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. 4. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/ State, would strongly support the impugned judgment and submit that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of the trial Court and records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. I am of the view that the trial Court and the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in affirming the conviction of the applicant for offence under Section 354 of the IPC. 7. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant is facing criminal trial since 2014 and thereafter more than 10 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone 24 days of jail sentence and there would be no useful purpose to again send the applicant in jail as he has already suffered 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 R.I. for one years with fine amount of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for one month under Section 354 of IPC to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 24 days of jail sentence, however fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to 10,000/- for the offence under Section 354 of IPC. Total enhanced fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be deposited by the applicant in addition to the fine amount already deposited by him, within a period of 02 months from today before the trial Court concerned, and the same shall be paid to the victim (PW-1), failing which the trial Court shall take him into custody in accordance with law to further undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the appellate Court. Ordered accordingly. 4 8. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 9. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti