1 2026:CGHC:8723 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1042 of 2016 1 - Rinku @ Amit Kumar Pandey S/o Ramesh Pandey Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Kusami, P.S. Kusami, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 2 - Karamveer @ Babalu Singh S/o Rajendra Singh Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Kachi, P.S. Aasta, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station - Kusmi, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellants : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate. For the State/Respondent : Mr. Rishiraj Pithawa, Dy. GA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 18.02.2026 1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.08.2016 passed in Special Session Trial No.04/2012, by which, learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, Distt- Surguja, (CG), convicted the 2 appellants for offence punishable under Section 354/34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo maximum RI for 1-1 year and fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to undergo additional RI for 03 months. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.09.2011 the victims/prosecutrix (who are students of Shri Rameshwar Gahiraguru Sanskrit, Higher Secondary School, Shrikot) went to their friends house to collector their suit, their bus was missed, both of them waiting at bus stand for next bus, at that time, appellant No.1 reached there by motorcycle/bike and took them to drop the Shrikot, but appellant No.1 turned the motor cycle to some other way, to which, both the victims/prosecutrix raised the objection, then appellant No.1 insured that this road is also going to Shrikot, both of them alongwith appellant No.1 reached just front of Luthran Mission School, where appellant No.2 was present, then both appellants caught hold victims and with bad intention trying to bring them inside the school, but both of them managed to escape from there. Based on report lodged, FIR was registered against the appellants for the alleged offence/crime. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and based upon which, trial Court framed the charge against the appellant. 3 4. In order to prove guilt of appellants, prosecution examined total 07 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellants (accused) were recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which they pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and is confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He submits that incident had taken place in the year 2011, ie, more than 14 years have elapsed, it was first offence of appellants and, thereafter, they had not indulged themselves in any other criminal activity, appellant No.1 has served about 04 days of jail sentence whereas appellant No.2 has served about 07 days of jail sentence, therefore, no purpose would be served by again sending the appellants to jail after lapse of more than 14 years. Hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellants, would submit that looking to the nature of offence, leniency should not be shown to 4 appellants herein. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 9. Though learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged conviction of appellants and restricted 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 Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 10. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, 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 appellants are guilty for the aforementioned offence. 11. As regard quantum of sentence, considering the fact that incident in question had taken place in the year 2011, ie, more than 14 years have elapsed, detention period of the appellants, they are not having any previous criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellants to jail at this point of time for undergoing remaining period of sentence and ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellants is reduced 5 to the period already undergone by them by enhancing fine amount. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellants under Section 354/34 of IPC is hereby affirmed; sentence imposed upon the appellants under aforesaid Section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them. However fine amount imposed upon the appellants is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/-, which shall be deposited by the appellant before the trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, appellant will have to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Amount of fine, if any, already deposited shall be adjusted. 13. Record of trial Court alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-