Partly allowed

Brijpal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Nov 2024CRR/538/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the High Court affirmed the conviction for outraging modesty but reduced the jail sentence to the period already served over 21 years of litigation. The High Court directed bail bonds remain operative for six months.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; jail sentence reduced to period undergone; bail bonds to remain in force for six months.

Brijpal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:43214

NAFR

Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2024.11.06 17:17:11 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRR No. 538 of 2012

¶7

• Brijpal S/o Koduram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village - Semariya, PS - Jaijaipur, Distt. - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

• State of Chhattisgarh, Through PS - Jaijaipur, Distt. - Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board

¶12

06.11.2024

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.90/2011 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, whereby the appellate Court, while upholding the conviction of the applicant under Section 354 IPC and sentence of RI for 5 months with fine of Rs.500/- plus usual default, as passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jaijaipur in Criminal Case No.186/2007 vide judgment dated 02.05.2011, has dismissed the appeal.

¶15

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.06.2003 at about 05:30

¶16

2 / 3

¶17

PM, while the prosecutrix/victim girl was coming out of pond after taking bath, the applicant/accused forcibly took her inside the pond and tried to outrage her modesty. Thereafter, the incident was reported by the prosecutrix/victim girl to Police Station Jaijaipur and on the basis of her report, offence punishable under Section 354 IPC was registered against the applicant/accused.

¶18

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

¶19

Learned Court of J.M.F.C. Jaijaipur, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded the finding of conviction and sentence as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.08.2012, has dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence as made in para 1. Hence, this revision.

¶20

Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the incident is of June, 2003, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since June, 2003, i.e. for more than 21 years. The applicant was in jail from 16.08.2012 to 10.10.2012, and thus he incarcerated the jail sentence for 55 days and he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Lastly, he submits that fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant.

¶21

On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision while supporting the impugned judgment.

¶22

3 / 3

¶23

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

¶24

Considering the evidence of the prosecutrix/victim girl ‘S’ (P.W.-1), which was supported by the evidence of ‘H’ (P.W.3), coupled with the medical evidence i.e. MLC (Ex.P-6) proved by Dr. ‘S’ (PW-5) 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 55 days and he is facing the lis since June, 2003, i.e., for more than 21 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.

¶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 )

¶29

Judge

¶30

Prakash

Brijpal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijpal 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

Abdul Razaa Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sundaru @ Sundar Vs State Of C.g.

Yakub Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ranjlal and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shahajada @ Shahjad Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mittu Yadav and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh