Allowed

Maniram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Oct 2024CRR/159/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision under Cr.P.C. 397/401, the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the applicant's conviction for outrage of modesty. While affirming the conviction, the court reduced the jail sentence to the 7 days already undergone, maintaining the imposed fine, and ordered bail bonds to remain in force for six months.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; jail sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine retained; bail bonds extended for six months.

Maniram Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 3

¶2

Digitally signed by 2024:CGHC:40220 ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2024.10.15 18:03:45 NAFR +0530

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 159 of 2012

¶5

Maniram S/o Salik Ram, aged 24 years, R/o Village Kaudia, P.S. Seepat District Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicant

¶6

versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner/Applicant : Shri M.K.Baeg, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate.

¶9

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

Order on Board

14/10/2024

Heard.

The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.79/2010 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur whereby the appellate Court affirmed the conviction under Section 354 IPC and sentence of one year RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay fine amount, further SI for one month as passed by the J.M.F.C. Bilaspur vide its judgment dated 27.07.2010 in Criminal Case No.661/2009 and thus dismissed the appeal.

¶14

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.03.2009 when P.W.1 V.K. had gone to Jairamnagar to bring his wife from her parental house, then his uncle Baldev informed him over telephone that at 12:00 noon the present applicant

¶15

2 / 3

¶16

took her daughter (P.W.4) towards field where he outraged her modesty and on receiving such information he came back and enquired about the incident from the victim whereupon the victim (P.W.4) told him that the applicant enticed her and took her to field and mounted on her. Matter was reported to the Police Station, Seepat where F.I.R vide crime No.58/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC was registered against him. The F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P.1 and spot map was prepared vide Ex.P.2. After due investigation, the applicant was arrested on 27.04.2009. Statements of witnesses were recorded.

¶17

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur The applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.

¶18

Learned Court of J.M.F.C. Bilaspur, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded the finding of conviction and sentence as mentioned in para 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 21.02.2012 has dismissed the appeal while upholding conviction and sentence, as mentioned in para 1. Hence, this revision.

¶19

Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are major contradictions in the statement of the victim P.W.4 and that the same was not properly corroborated by the other evidence as well. Alternatively, he submits that the incident is of 2009, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since 2009, i.e. for more than 15 years. The applicant was in jail from 21.02.2012 till 27.02.2012 and thus he incarcerated the jail sentence for a period of 7 days and he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. He further submits that fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned Court.

¶20

On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the revision and submits

¶21

3 / 3

¶22

that the statement of victim P.W.4 was supported by the evidence of P.W.5 A.R. as the incident was promptly reported by P.W.1 V.K., father of the victim. He further submits that the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court were justified in convicting and sentencing the applicant, which does not call for interference.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely.

¶24

Considering the evidence of the complainant/victim (P.W.4), which was supported by the evidence of A.R. (P.W.5) and promptly lodged F.I.R. (Ex.P.1) by the father of the victim and further considering the material documents available on record, I am of the view that both the Trial Court as well as appellate Court were justified in convicting the applicant as such.

¶25

As regards jail sentence of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering that the applicant was in jail for a period of 7 days and he is facing the lis since 2009, i.e., for more than 15 years and there are no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant by the appellate Court, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, fine amount imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court shall remain in tact.

¶26

Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶29

Anjani

Maniram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maniram 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

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Gesbai

Ramesh Kumar Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Shrawan Kumar Dhruv

Rajmangal Chauhan @ Rajendra Chauhan Vs Sitaram Bareth

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs S. K. Mohanti

Shekhan Tirki Vs Kallu Lohar