High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed criminal revision partly. Court maintained conviction under Section 292 IPC but reduced sentence to time already undergone by applicant due to time lapse and societal responsibilities.
Revision allowed in part; sentence reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2008
Judgment reserved on 01.10.2018 Judgment delivered on 05.12.2018
Gouri Bai, Wd/o. Late Jagita Satnami, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Village Salverarapara, P.S. and District Dhamtari (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. City Kotwali, Dhamtari (C.G.)
---- Respondent –----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicant : Mr. Vishnu Muni, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor CAV Judgment
1 . This revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Dhamtari District Dhamtari in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2007, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhamtari in Criminal Case No. 289/2006,convicting and sentencing the accused/applicant as under:-
| Applicant | Conviction | Sentence | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gouri Bai | 292 2(K) IPC |
RI for i |
3 months with i |
| fine | i of Rs. 1000/- | ||
| with | default |
2
stipulations
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.05.2002 at 23.30 PM a raid was conducted by the Police Station of Police Dhamtari under the Peta Act and during the raid one V.C.D. and video cassette of obscene pictures were seized from the possession of the applicant, thereafter the matter was investigated and the charge sheet was filed before the trial Court.
3
7 . Though there is prayer only in respect of sentence part of the judgment impugned, this Court is required to deal with the conviction part thereof as well on merit.
8 . On analyzing the case put fourth by the prosecution and the evidence adduced by it, it comes to the fore that on the date of incident a raid was conducted under the Peta Act and from the possession of the applicant one V.C.D and video cassette of obscene picture was seized from her. Thus, the Court below has not committed any illegality in convicting the accused/applicant under Section 292 (2)(K) and it is hereby maintained.
9 . As regards sentence, keeping in view the fact that the incident had taken place about 16 years back and by now the applicant must be leading a well settled life bearing the burden of her responsibilities, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by her. Order accordingly.
10 . Resultantly, the revision is hereby allowed in part with the modification in the judgment impugned as above.
Sd/(Vimla Singh Kapoor) JUDGE
Jyotishi/ Santosh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should deal with the conviction part when the revision prayer is confined to the sentence?
Whether the sentence of 3 months fine with default should be reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gouri Bai
State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. City Kotwali, Dhamtari
Vimla Singh Kapoor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
