Allowed

Intsaar Ahmad @ Baba Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Apr 2022CRR/421/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition, upholding the conviction under Section 354 IPC but modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs. 25,000/- due to the appellant's age and twelve-year pendency of the lis.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; conviction upheld; sentence modified to fine of Rs. 25,000/- within three months, or R.I. for 6 months if fine unpaid.

Intsaar Ahmad @ Baba Khan Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 421 of 2011

¶5

Intsaar Ahmad @ Baba Khan S/o Aaftab, Caste Musalman, R/o Village Vidhydih, P.S.-Masturi, Distt.-Bilaspur, C.G. ---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

• State Of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Bilaspur, DistrictBilaspur, C.G. ----Respondent

¶8

_____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Dy. A.G.

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board

¶10

13/04/2022

¶11

This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.07.2011 passed in CRA No.114 of 2011 by 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), arising out of order dated 08.04.2011 passed in Criminal Case No.90 of 2010 by JMFC, Bilaspur whereby while affirming the conviction, learned appellate Court sentenced the applicant for the commission of offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC with R.I. for six months and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-.

¶12

According to the case of the prosecution, on 01.01.2010 at about 6:00 pm when the complainant was returned from storage room and while she reached the canal for washing her hands, allegedly, the applicant came from behind and asked her to stop and then caught hold her hands. Thereafter, prosecutrix/victim got herself free from his grip and tried to run away and in this process, she has fallen on the ground and then the applicant came on top of the prosecutrix and when prosecutrix raised alarm Sail Kumar (PW-2)

¶13

¶14

and Basant (PW-10 respectively came there and after seen them, the applicant fled away from the spot. The complainant came to her house and informed the incident to her husband and family members. The husband of the complainant inquired about the incident from the applicant. Allegedly the applicant again caught hold her hands in front of her husband. A meeting was also convened on 11.01.2010. Matter was reported by the complainant. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the learned JMFC. Learned JMFC vide judgment dated 08.04.2011, convicted the applicant/accused for the offfence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Against the said judgment of learned JMFC, a criminal appeal has been preferred by the applicant/accused. Vide impugned judgment dated 27.07.2011, the jail sentence has been reduced to R.I. for six months and fine awarded has been maintained. Hence, this appeal.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this revision on merits and confines his argument on sentence part only. It is submitted by him that the applicant has no criminal antecedent, he is aged about 58 years and he is facing the lis from last 12 years, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be sentenced to only fine amount.

¶16

Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

¶17

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the fact that the accused/applicant is facing the lis from last 12 years and he has no criminal antecedent, I am of the view that the ends of

¶19

¶20

justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant under Section 354 of the IPC, the judgment of lower Court is modified to the extent that the applicant shall only pay fine amount of Rs.25,000/- within a period of three months from the receipt of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. In default of payment of fine, the applicant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 6 months.

¶21

Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶22

Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

¶23

Sd/(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶24

Ravi

Intsaar Ahmad @ Baba Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Intsaar Ahmad @ Baba Khan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fagu Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sahdev Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Omprakash Gupta @ Bechu Bir Guruji Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Kumar Swami Vs a. N. Upadhyay

Ram Prasad Sidar Vs Surendra Singh Baghe

Tibu @ Jairam Vs State of Chhattisgarh