Partly allowed

Ramnarayan Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Dec 2024CRR/640/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 354 and 456 IPC against an elderly appellant despite his age and time served, but reduced the jail term to match time already undergone while keeping the fine intact.

What did the court decide?

Revision partly allowed; conviction affirmed; jail sentence reduced to period already undergone; sentences to run concurrently; fine remains intact; bail bond maintained for six months.

Ramnarayan Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

2024:CGHC:48805

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 640 of 2012

¶6

Ramnarayan Sahu S/o Ramjee Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Shukrawari Bazar Road Bilaigarh, P.S. Bilaigarh, District Raipur Now Baloda Bazar (C.G.)

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through In Charge P.S. Bilaigarh Distrct Raipur Now Balod Bazar/Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondend

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. K.K.	Dewangan, Advocate.

¶11

For State/Respondent : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatiay, Dy. G.A.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

11.12.2024

¶15

1 . The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 22.09.2012 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No.163 of 2011 arising out of the judgment dated 29.10.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaigarh District - Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.477 of 2010 convicting the applicant under Sections 456 & 354 of IPC and sentencing him to R.I for six months and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine S.I for one month on each count.

¶16

2 . Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.12.2010 at about 10:00 P.M. while prosecutrix (PW-1) was cleaning her home and his family members were inside the room, at that time, accused/applicant entered in

¶17

¶18

her house, caught hold the hands of victim and tried to outrage her modesty and misbehaved with her. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under the aforesaid sections were registered against the applicant. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

3 . After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaigarh District - Raipur (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty.

¶20

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant and confines his argument on sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that at the time of incident, present applicant was aged about 60 years and now he is more than 70 years old. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 50 days i.e. from 13.12.2010 to 20.12.2010 and thereafter from 22.09.2012 to 03.11.2012, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the li s since December, 2010, i.e. for almost 14 years. He also submits that the fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

7 . Considering the statements of prosecutrix PW-1 supported by her mother PW-3, her sister PW-4 and Mati Bai PW-2 and other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is a correct finding of fact. Therefore, I hereby

¶24

¶25

affirm the conviction of the applicant.

¶26

8. As regards sentence of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone jail sentence for a period of 50 days and he is facing the lis since December, 2010 and there is no criminal antecedents against him, further considering the fact that at present, the age of the applicant is more than 70 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.

¶27

9 . Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. Fine sentences awarded under the aforesaid sections shall remain intact.

¶28

10. 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.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶31

Vaibhav

Ramnarayan Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramnarayan Sahu 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

Dileep Kothari H U F Vs Deewan Singh

Hulas Ram Sahu Vs Smt.Saraswati Sahu and Anr.

Nand Kumar Ahirwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rohit Sidar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nand Lal Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Thakurram