1 CGHC010103232026 2026:CGHC:42003 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 759 of 2026 Narmada Das Mahant S/o Shri Haridas Mahant, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village- Dhurvakari Police Station- Pachpedi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. AG (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 26/09/2026 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNSS, 2023’), against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.03.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO Act), Balodabazar (C.G.) in 2 Special Case (POCSO) No.81/2022, whereby, trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.03.2022, father of victim lodged a written complaint at Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, stating that his daughter aged about 16 years had allegedly been lured away by an unknown person on the pretext of getting her vaccinated. It was further stated that after about two hours, victim returned back to her home. On the basis of said written complaint, police has registered the crime against appellant in the aforesaid offence. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties and considering the material available on record, framed charges against the appellant for the aforesaid offence. Appellant abjured the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. After appreciation of the evidence, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced as mentioned in Para- 3 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press the present appeal insofar as the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court is concerned and would confine his submissions only to the quantum of sentence. He further submits that appellant remained in custody since 22.08.2022 (from the date of arrest), i.e., for about 4 years, 01 month and 04 days. Therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant may kindly be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. On the contrary, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 7. Though learned counsel for the appellant is not pressing the instant appeal on the conviction part of the judgment, however, on perusal of the statement of victim and other prosecution witnesses and other material aspects of the prosecution case. Thus, considering the deposition of victim, and the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence, I find no illegality or perversity in holding the appellant guilty. Accordingly, the conviction 4 of the appellant for the aforesaid offences is hereby affirmed. 8. So far as the sentence part is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the appellant is in jail since 22.08.2022 (from the date of arrest) and has undergone about 04 years and 01 month, of the jail sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant in further detention to undergo the remaining period of sentence, rather the ends of justice would be served if his jail sentence under the aforesaid sections is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned Trial Court is maintained; however, the jail sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine imposed by the learned Trial Court warrants modification. Accordingly, the fine amount imposed upon the appellant is hereby reduced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.200/-. It is further directed that, in the event of default on the part of appellant to pay reduced fine amount of Rs.200/-, appellant shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 05 days. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 10. Appellant is reported to be in jail, he be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other matter/case. 5 11. Record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and needful, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Vasant