Partly allowed

Chhagan Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Aug 2017CRR/406/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court of Chhattisgarh affirmed the conviction of the appellant for outraging modesty and simple assault but severed his six-month imprisonment, reducing it to the period already undergone as he had already spent time in jail.

What did the court decide?

The sentence of six months simple imprisonment under Section 354 IPC was reduced to the period undergone by the appellant; his bail bond was discharged.

Chhagan Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

^ ^

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Revision No. 406 of 2005

¶4

Chhagan Lal

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Chhattisgarh

¶7

CAVORDER

¶8

Post for pronouncement of Order on...QS...108/2017

Sd/-

SHABAD^KUMARGUPTA

Judge

id^u.c.itta^fcfaaiuji^y

¶14

(p.ilift^iTO;.,
.i'?-,,..uS^ yr^"• ^ vt',
g ^
S '">W«^ 'yj ti

¶15

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶16

CrimlnaLBeyision No.406 of 2005

¶17

Order Reserved on 12/07/2017

¶18

Order Delivered on 02/08/2017

¶19

Chhagan Lal S/o Sadhu Lal Sinha, Aged about 22 years, R/o Village Chiddo, P.S. Dongergaon, Distt. Rajpandgaon (C.G.)

¶20

-—Applicant

¶21

Versus

¶22

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶23

-—Non-applicant

¶24

For the applicant :Shri RajatAgrawal, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri S.C. Verma, Advocate

¶25

For the State : Shri Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer.

¶26

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta

¶27

CAV Order

¶28

The applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision against the judgment^{dated06/09/2005} pronounced^{byAdditionalSessions} Judge, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Appeal No. 107/2004, whereby Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence pronounced by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dongargarh on 29/09/2004 in Criminal Case No. 328/2000 whereby and whereunder the applicant was convicted under Section 341, 354 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to, '/PC'), and sentenced for Rs.200/- fine, in default Additional seven days simple imprisonment, six months simple imprisonment and fine 1000/- in default, payment of fine additional one month

¶29

.1 -il

¶30

^•SIIE»».,
^^"^
"
B' A.: '5
'.k'tL!---y .?
<f""

¶31

simple imprisonment, respectively.

¶32

Unfolded prosecution story is that the prosecutrix on 18/08/2000 by 16.30 p.m. was returning to her home from her field, meanwhile in the way, applicant with criminal intent caught hold of her left wrist and demanded sexual intercourse, while pulling her towards his house, prosecutrix twitched and rescued herself, during the course of event her bangle of left hand was broken. Then prosecutrix went her house and narrated the incident to her uncle Dharam Sinha, Chandrabhan and her husband. On very day by 19.50 hours she lodged the First Information Report in Police Station, Dongargarh.

¶33

After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant. After conclusion of the trial, he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

¶34

Learned Advocate for applicant Shri Rajat Agrawal appears on behalf of Shri S.C. Verma, Advocate argued that, findings of both the Sub-ordinate Courts are not correct. They have not followed the well settled principles of law.

¶35

Shri Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State supported.th'e judgment of the Sub-ordinate Courts saying that prosecution succeeded to prove his case. The applicant has been rightly convicted and sentenced.

¶36

It is well settled law that a Revisional Court by exercising its revisional power only may interfere with the finding of the lower Court where the lower Court has committed some illegality or given

¶37

"\ Jy,

¶38

-'•:^~v' 0. • -•, 'K "'^^''wh-y -/-?" .i'

¶39

the perverse findings or carried out miscarriage ofjustice.

¶40

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.S. Rathore v. Central Bureau Investigation and Another, (2017) 5 SCC 817 observed that mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberafe intention of having such outrage alone for its object.

¶41

P.W.l the prosecutrix says in para Nos. 1,2 and 3 of her statement on oath that, when she was returning back from her field, the applicant met her on the way and was trying to take her to his house by pulling. He had caught hold of her left wrist which she rescued, meanwhile her bangle of left hand also got broken.

¶42

PW-2 Jhuniya Bai, who is mother-in-law and PW-4 Manbhoutin Bai, who is maternal Grand-mother of the prosecutrix in para No. 1 of their statement on oath stated that, they have seen the said applicant had caught hold the hand of the prosecutrix.

¶43

PW-1 the prosecutrix says in para No. 7 that this is truethere were no talking terms between both the families. PW-2 Jhuniya Bai and PW-4 Manbhoutin Bai also stated the same fact in para No.,',4.

¶44

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh v. State of Panjab, AIR 1987 SC 1080 has laid down that enmity can not be accepted as it is absurd that on account of litigation father of Prosecutrix would falsely involved his daughter in case of rape by the Appellant.

¶45

The above mentioned judicial precedent emerges that this is not

¶46

Biut&ai^j

¶47

i'"3>,'3r"Iy
"'a.fc--'""

¶48

the natural human conduct that on the ground of previous enmity a person^{mayinvolveorusethecharacterormodestyofawoman} of his family. Moreover, there is no such circumstances on strength of which it could be said that applicant has been falsely involved in alleged incident. Thus, the applicant does not get any help from the fact of previous enmity.

¶49

There is no such evidence on record on strength of which it could be said that incriminating statements of PW-1 the prosecutrix, PW2 Jhuniya Bai and PW-4 Manbhoutin Bai are not believable.

¶50

FIR Ex. P/l reflects all the material facts. It would be pertinent to say that Ex.P/1 was lodged immediately after the alleged incident, without any delay. There is no material evidence which indicate that, Ex.P/1 is neither natural, nor simple or normal.

¶51

As per the alleged seizure Ex.P/2 one unbroken bangle brown in colour was taken and seized from the prosecutrix. As per the alleged seizure Ex.P/3 one broken bangle of same colour was seized from the place of occurrence. No material on record can discard the credibility of Ex.P/2 and P/3 .

¶52

¶53

On basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court finds out that both the sub-ordinate Courts have not committed any illegality or perversity while awarding the conviction, there is no miscarriage of justice. Thus, this Court affirms the conviction of the applicant mentioned above.

¶54

In the opinion of this Court, both the sub-ordinate Courts have

¶55

si_

¶56

uAt^ia;'!u' A3ti-AT([—-l~Kr —-a

¶57

not committed any illegality in sentencing the applicant for Section 341 IPC and Rs. 1000/- fine for Section 354 IPC. At the time of the incident no minimum imprisonment was provided for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. The incident that happened on 18.08.2000 i.e. around 17 years elapsed. Now the applicant is near about 41 years old. He has been spent some days in jail. Now he is in the main stream of society. Sending him again to jail would disturb his and his family members life. Hence, no useful purpose would be served. 1 am of the opinion that the cause of justice would be best subserved when the sentence of the applicant would be altered to the period undergone. 1 therefore reduce the sentence of simple imprisonment of six months under Section 354 IPC awarded to the period undergone by him.

¶58

Consequently the revision is partly allowed. The applicant is on bail. His bond stands discharged subject to the provisions contained in Section 437-Aofthe Cr.P.C.

¶59

1_ SdA SHARAD KuatAR GUPTA J"cfge

¶60

Kamde

¶61

•, ....r.ti-f'fcaiS^tj^A-ii.ias.u.u

Chhagan Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhagan Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendranath Pandey and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Thanoo Ram Verma and Another Vs State of Cg and Others

Baldau Singh Patel and Another Vs State of Cg and Another

Rajnish Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramu @ Ranavatar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kartik Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh