Partly allowed

Kartik Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Aug 2017CRR/477/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC, the High Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 354 and 456 IPC of the applicant for offences committed in 2002 but remitted the sentence to the period already undergone, citing the passage of 15 years and the applicant's rehabilitation.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; sentence remitted to the period of rigorous imprisonment already undergone under Sections 354 and 456 IPC.

Kartik Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

iBwa

¶2

c^-^

¶3

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OP a-HM'TISSARI-I AT BILASPUR

¶4

Cr-Lminai Revislon No. /2005 $ij^B?3 ,^^_ , ^@"c! (DATE OP .PRESENTATION 27..10.05^

¶5

APPLICBNT IlN^JXl£,7

¶6

i- ^Kartikram son of Bodhj-ram Nishad, aged about 24 years, resident of Bhatgaon, P»S* Mana camp, Raipur, 'Oistrict Raipur (C.G«). '(?'. '

VERSUS '

~~^

NON-APPLICANT

s- State o£ chhattisgarh Through- P«S. Hana Camp,

¶11

Olstriet Raipur (C.G.5:,

¶12

CRMINAL REVISION IBDER SECTIOH 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C,

¶13

i.3

¶14

1"^rSf^\

¶15

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶16

Criminal Revision No. 477 of 2005

¶17

\ Kartikram

¶18

Versus

¶19

State-of Chhattisgarh

¶20

'i.i ...»,

¶21

CAVORDER

¶22

Post for pronouncement of Order on.0.^.../08/2017

Sd/-

SHARAD KUMARGUPTA

Judge

0.1.10812017

..^;fr'
,^:
'wsw
;• II
•<B'""
'>,.

¶28

-1-

¶29

c AFR <

¶30

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶31

Res'erved on 20/07/2017

¶32

Delivered on 02/08/2017

¶33

Criminal Revision No. 477of 2005

¶34

Kartikram S/o Bhodhiram-Nishad, aged about 24 years, R/o Bhatgaon, P.S. Mana Camp, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶35

-—Applicant

¶36

<grsus

¶37

State Of Chhattisgarh Throdg'h - P.S. Mana Camp, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶38

-—Non-applicant

¶39

ForApplicant : Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate For State Shri U.N.S. Deo, Government Advocate

¶40

Hpn'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta

¶41

CAV O^DER

¶42

The present Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Raipur on 24th October 2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 240/2005 whereby he affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence pronounced by JMFC, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 2038/2004 whereby and whereunder JMFC Raipur convicted the Applicant under Sections 354, 456 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter called as 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo .

¶43

rigorous imprisonment for six months, rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of paymentof fine additional rigorous imprisonment for one month respectively.

¶44

-2-

¶45

The unfolded prosecution story is that the Prosecutrix was living in village Bhatgaon, or^ 26.06.2002 by 08:00 pm the Applicant entered her house by concealing himself and caught hold her waist by his hands. When the Pros'ecutrix shouted then the Applicant ran away. The Prosecutrix informed some other persons and lodged the FIR on 27.06.2002 by 14:30 hrs. The charge-sheet was filed against the Applicant and ultimatelyo' he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

¶46

li^rtNNNINI

¶47

Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the Applicant urged that the conviction and sentences awarded by Sub-ordinate Courts are bad in law, huge contradictions and omissions were existed among the prosecution witnesses. The Prosecutrix's version has not been corroborated from other witnesses.

¶48

Shri UNS Deo, Government Advocate for the State submitted that evidence adduced bythe prosecution is fully reliable.

¶49

I have gone through the records with utmost care.

¶50

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 the perverse findings or carried out miscarriage ofjustice.

¶51

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 o.f a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention of having such outrage alone for its object.

¶52

-3-

¶53

"^. <B,"•-1 \ 'fwr'""^ :s. -•', ""^ '^^.. ^

¶54

PW1- the Prosecutrix says in para No.l of her statement on oath that in the night Applicant had entered her house and caught hold her waist. It is pertinent that, on behalf of the Applicant, it was suggested to PW1 the Prosecutrix in para No.2 that when she shouted the Applicant ran away. Moreever, her version is supported by paragraph No.l of the statement on oath of her husband PW2 - Shankar Lal Dhruv and PW3 - Raja RarR, where they told that the Prosecutrix ,J1

¶55

informed aboutthe incident.

¶56

There is no such evidence on record on strength of which it could be said that above mentioned statements are not reliable.

¶57

There is the description about alleged incident in FIR Ex. Pl. As being night when the incident occurred is itself a sufficient ground to lodge the Ex. Pl next day. There is no material evidence which indicates that Ex. Pl does not inspire confidence.

¶58

There is no such evidence that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the alleged incident.

¶59

On basis of aforesaid discussion ,^{thisCourtfindsout} that^both the Sub-ordinate Courts have not committed any illegality, perversity in convicting the Applicant. There is no such ground on strength of which it could be said miscarriage ofjustice has been carried out. Thus, this Court affirms the conviction of the Applicant mentioned above.

¶60

The incident was occurred on 26.06.2002 i.e. around 15 years elapsed. Now the applicant is near about 40 years old. He has been remained in jail for some days. Now he is in the main stream of society. Sending him again to jail would disturb his and his family

¶61

,4 ^T^s.
.
y^^, ^
•5 ^,..^-"
"'"••—'&

¶62

-4-

¶63

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 sentences of the Applicant would be altered to the period undergone. 1 therefore reduce the serrtence of rigorous imprisonment of six months under Section 354 IPG, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 456 IPC awarded, to the period undergone by him .

¶64

Consequently the Revision^ partly allowed. The applicant is on bail. His bond stands discharged subject to the provisions contained in ^-.. Section437-AoftheCr.P.C.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

(ynapaa Kumar^yupta) JUDGE^^^o^ t>i-

¶67

kishore

Kartik Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartik Ram 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.

Chhagan Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh