Partly allowed

Kashi Ram Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jul 2024CRA/853/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision appeal by a convict against a lower court's judgment. The High Court upheld the conviction for offences under Sections 354 and 506 IPC but reduced the sentence to the time already undergone, imposed a fine for compensation, and extended bail.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to time undergone; collective fine of Rs. 10,000 imposed for compensation; bail extended by six months.

Kashi Ram Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 8

2024:CGHC:24934

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 853 of 2006

¶6

1 - Kashi Ram Chandra, aged about 23 years, S/o Gouri Lal Chandra occupation Cultivation, R/o Village Nawagaon, Thana Malkharoda, Dist- Janjgir Champa (CG)

¶7

... appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa (CG)

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

For appellant	: Mr.	Shailendra Dubey, Advocate
For Respondent	: Mr.	Pankaj Singh, P.L.

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

¶13

Order on board

¶14

11.07.2024.

¶15

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14/11/2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Case No. 17/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-

¶16

2 / 8

¶17

S.No.	Conviction	Sentence
1	U/s 354 of IPC	R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 06 months
4	U/s 506 (Part II) of IPC	R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 6 months.
		All the sentences will run concurrently

¶18

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26/10/2003, the prosecutrix (PW3) has lodged a written report (Ex-P/7) to the Police against the present appellant with the allegation that on 25/10/2003 when she had gone to her field for performing pooja, the appellant came there and outraged her modesty and tried to committee rape upon her on the point of knife. She made deep request to left her and then he left her with the condition that she had to come after two days otherwise he would kill her. On the basis of written report (Ex-P/7) the Police has registered the FIR (Ex-P/6) for the offence under Section 354, 506-B of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as SC/ST Act). The prosecutrix was sent for her medical examination to Primary Health Centre, Malkharoda, where she was medically examined by (PW/1) Dr. R.P. Kurre who gave his report (Ex-P/5). While examining the prosecutrix, the doctor has found multiple abrasion on left elbow joint and complaining pain over left shoulder and back. The social status certificate of the prosecutrix have been seized by the Police. Spot map (Ex-P/8) was prepared. The appellant was arrested on 11/11/2003 and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against

¶19

3 / 8

¶20

the appellant for the offence under Section 354, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti, from where the case was committed to the learned trial Court for its trial.

¶21

3. The learned trial Court has framed charge for the offence under Section 354, 376 read with Section 511 and 506-B of IPC and Section 3 (1)(xi) of SC/ST Act. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed trial.

¶22

4. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and has submitted that his father was having property dispute with the maternal Uncle of the prosecutrix for that reason he has been falsely implicated in the offence.

¶23

5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(xi) of SC/ST Act, however, he has been convicted for the offence under Section 354 and 506 (Part II) of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

¶24

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omission and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He would further submit that when the appellant has been acquitted from the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC, he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 354 of IPC on the same set of evidence. There is no sufficient evidence on record

¶25

4 / 8

¶26

to hold conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 506-B of IPC also. The place where the prosecutrix is alleged to be subjected to outrage modesty by the appellant is an isolated place of the field and the contention of the prosecutrix that she had gone to the place of incident for performing pooja is highly improbable. The appellant was stranger to the prosecutrix yet the named report has been lodged against him which further makes the prosecution case doubtful and since, the presence of the appellant at the place of incident itself is doubtful, there is no question of threatening to her by the appellant. Therefore, in absence of any cogent and clinching evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted and he is entitled for acquittal.

¶27

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that but for minor omission and contradictions, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are fully reliable which unerringly pointing towards guilt of the appellant for alleged offence. After appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 354 and 506 (Part- II) of IPC which is strictly in accordance with law and his appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶29

9. Prosecutrix (PW/3) has stated in her evidence that on the date of incident when she had gone to the field for performing pooja, the appellant came there, gagged her mouth and on the point of knife he tried to commit rape upon her and outrage her modesty. He pressed her breasts and given treatening to her that if she would disclose the incident to anyone, he would kill her. She somehow get out from the clutches of the appellant and reached to her house. As soon as, she

¶30

5 / 8

¶31

reached to her house, she informed the incident to her parents and on the next day, she lodged the report to the Police. In her detailed crossexamination, she remained firm in saying that the appellant had outraged her modesty and given threatening to her with dire consequences. With respect to the identification of the appellant, she stated that she knew the appellant by her face because she regularly seen him on the way in the village. She could not raise her alarm because of the reason that the appellant gagged her mouth and threatened her with dire consequences. When the appellant tried to commit rape upon her, she kicked him and then the appellant fled away. But for minor omission and contradictions, she remained firm on her allegation.

¶32

10. (PW/5) the mother of the prosecutrix too has supported the prosecution’s case that he daughter has regularly going to perform pooja in the field and on the date of incident when she came back from the field she informed about the incident and then on the next day, they lodged the report. She too has remained firm about the incident and the information given to her by her daughter and supported the prosecutrix evidence.

¶33

11. From these witnesses, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence of Section 354 and 506-B (506 Part II) of IPC which in the opinion of this Court is the correctly appreciated by the learned trial Court and there is no scope for any interference in the conviction of the appellant for the offence of Section 354 and 506-B (506 Part II) of IPC and thus, this Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for the alleged offences.

¶34

6 / 8

¶35

12. The other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant would be the appellant is remained in jail for about 12 days, the offence of Section 354 and 506-B( 506 Part II) does not provide for any minimum sentence. The offence is of the year 2003, the appellant has already suffered the agony of the criminal trial for more than 20 years. The appellant is presently aged about 43 years and has settled in family life having various responsibilities and therefore, his undergone period may be considered to be the sufficient sentence for the alleged offence.

¶36

13. In the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries and held in Para 9 as follows:

¶37

"9. Western jurisprudes and sociologists. from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samuel Romilly. critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817: "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested: 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it'. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Center, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education'. If it is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration. that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed. that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by reculturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and the goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore, consider a therapeutic,

¶38

7 / 8

¶39

rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts. since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw: 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield: "If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences."

¶40

14. considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and also considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin (Supra), the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of the appellant for the alleged offence are reduced for the period already undergone by him in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the present case.

¶41

15. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 354 and 506-B (506 Part II) of IPC, he is sentenced for the period already undergone by him with collective fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo further R.I. for two months for each offences. The fine amount shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The fine amount so deposited by the appellant shall be paid to the prosecutrix (PW/3) as the compensation provided under Section 357-A of Cr.P.C.

¶42

16. With this alteration / modification of the sentence, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed.

¶43

8 / 8

¶44

17. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond shall continue for the further period of 6 months as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

¶45

18. The trial court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court, concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶48

sagrika

Kashi Ram Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashi Ram Chandra 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

Vinod Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Avinash Kumar Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandesh Khandelwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deleted (Lakheshwar Rao Gawande) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited Vs Fulbas

M/S Kwality Traders, Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax