Partly allowed¶28

Khemraj @ Khemu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Oct 2024CRR/231/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 377 IPC conviction affirmed; jail sentence reduced to period already undergone; carnal intercourse against the order of nature with a boy; Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 CrPC; High Court of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur; JMFC Lormi Criminal Case No.170 of 2011; Additional Sessions Judge Mungeli Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2011 judgment 14.03.2012; Section 437-A CrPC bail bond six months; no criminal antecedent; lis pending over 14 years; fine Rs.2,000/- affirmed; victim PW-1, father PW-4, doctor PW-8, medical report Ex.P-4.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed in part: conviction under Section 377 IPC affirmed; jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant; fine sentence affirmed; bail bond to remain in force for six months per Section 437-A CrPC. ¶28

Khemraj @ Khemu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the applicant under Section 377 IPC, as concurrently found by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court, was sustainable on the evidence on record (counsel did not press the revision on merits). +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

On the basis of the victim boy's evidence (PW-1), his father (PW-4), the examining doctor (PW-8) and medical report Ex.P-4, the Court held the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court convicting the applicant under Section 377 IPC to be correct findings, and affirmed the conviction.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

While upholding the conviction, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the jail sentence to the period already undergone, considering that the applicant remained in jail for 11 months and 10 days (11.04.2011 to 23.03.2012), has no criminal antecedent, and has faced the lis since April 2011 i.e. for more than 14 years; the fine sentence is affirmed.

¶27

Key takeaways

As the applicant is reported to be on bail, his bail bond shall remain in force for six months from the date of the order pursuant to Section 437-A CrPC.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Radhakishan Agrawal, J.), Criminal Revision No. 231 of 2012, decided 15.10.2024: Counsel for the applicant did not press the revision on merits and confined argument to sentence. The Court, relying on the victim boy (PW-1), his father (PW-4), the doctor (PW-8) and medical report Ex.P-4, held the concurrent findings of the Trial Court (JMFC Lormi, order dated 19.08.2011 in Criminal Case No.170 of 2011) and the Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, judgment dated 14.03.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2011) convicting the applicant under Section 377 IPC to be correct, and affirmed the conviction. On sentence, considering 11 months and 10 days already spent in custody (11.04.2011 to 23.03.2012), absence of criminal antecedents, and the lis continuing since April 2011 (over 14 years), the jail sentence was reduced to the period already undergone; the fine of Rs.2,000/- was affirmed and, the applicant being on bail, his bail bond was directed to remain in force for six months per Section 437-A CrPC. Revision allowed in part.

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2024:CGHC:40413

¶3

Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16 15:47:17 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Criminal Revision No. 231 of 2012

¶7

Khemraj @ Khemu, S/o. Baliram, aged about 20 years, R/o. Vill. Barbaspur, P.S. Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu and Mr. Satyendra Mahadewa, Advocates For State : Ms. M. Asha, P.L.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board

¶14

15/10/2024

¶15

The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 14.03.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2011 arising out of order dated 19.08.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lormi, District – Bilaspur, (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.170 of 2011 whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by affirming the conviction of the applicant under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and

¶16

2 / 4

¶17

sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 60 days.

¶18

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.04.2011, the victim boy (PW-1) was playing with his friend, at that time, the applicant called the victim boy to his house and thereafter, committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with him. Thereafter, the victim boy went to his house and informed about the incident to his father and other family members. Then the matter was reported to the police station Lormi and FIR (Ex.P1) was lodged and statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded nonguilty.

¶20

Learned Trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence vide order dated 19.08.2011 convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment against which appeal was preferred by the applicant and the same was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 14.03.2012. Hence, this revision.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that they does not want to press this revision on merits and confines their argument on sentence part only. They further submit that the applicant has remained in jail for 11 months and 10 days i.e. from 11.04.2011 to 23.03.2012, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since April, 2011, i.e.

¶22

3 / 4

¶23

for more than 14 years. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. They further submit that fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant.

¶24

On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment.

¶25

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

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence of the complainant/victim boy (PW-1), supported with the statement of his father (PW-4), the doctor (PW-8) who examined the victim boy and his medical report (Ex.P-4) and other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding.

¶27

With regard to the sentence of the applicant, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the facts that the applicant has remained in jail for 11 months and 10 days i.e. from 11.04.2011 to 23.03.2012, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since April, 2011, i.e. for more than 14 years, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶28

Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is

¶29

4 / 4

¶30

sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence

¶31

is affirmed.

¶32

Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Radhakishan Agrawal)

¶35

Judge

¶36

Prakash

Khemraj @ Khemu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khemraj @ Khemu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajmangal Chauhan @ Rajendra Chauhan Vs Sitaram Bareth

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs S. K. Mohanti

Maniram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhaniram Patel and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tilesh Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh