Partly allowed

Yakub Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Nov 2024CRR/75/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed the criminal revision. While affirming the conviction and fine under Sections 354 and 451 IPC, the Court reduced the rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by the applicant, citing his lack of criminal antecedents and the long pendency of the case.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed. Jail sentence reduced to period already undergone. Fine affirmed. Bail bond continued for six months.

Yakub Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 4

¶2

Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH YADAV YADAV Date: 2024.11.04 16:30:27 +0530

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 75 of 2012

¶6

Yakub Khan, aged about 29 years S/o Sttar Khan, R/o Village: Sonar Devri, Police Station: Pallari, District: Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate Raipur, District: Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Applicant : Mr.	Hemant Gupta, Advocate
For State : Ms.	Nand Kumari Kashyap, P.L.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

04.11.2024

¶15

1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure arising out of the judgment dated 16.01.2012 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2011, whereby, the appeal of the applicant filed against the judgment dated 29.04.2010 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balodabazar, District: Raipur, in Criminal Case

¶16

Page 2 of 4

¶17

No. 58/2009 convicting and sentencing him as under:

¶18

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 354 of IPC	RI for 3 months with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional SI for 7 days.
Under Section 451 of IPC	RI for 3 months with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional SI for 7 days.

¶19

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently

¶20

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.12.2004, complainant lodged a report, alleging therein that at about 09:00 am, the applicant herein entered her house with an intention to outrage her modesty, caught hold of her hand and misbehaved with her. Thereafter, the complainant disclosed the matter to her husband. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under the aforesaid sections were registered against the applicant.

¶21

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections were filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balodabazar, District: Raipur (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶22

4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the Para No. 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.01.2012, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision.

¶23

Page 3 of 4

¶24

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this revision on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 8 days i.e. from 16.01.2012 to 23.01.2012, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since 2004, i.e. for almost 20 years and the fine sentence has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

8. Considering the statements of complainant PW-1 supported by the statements of PW-4 Askaran, coupled with the statements of PW-6 Ajay Kumar and other evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding.

¶28

9. Further, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the applicant has undergone about 8 days, he is facing the lis since 2004 and there is no criminal antecedent against him, 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.

¶29

Page 4 of 4

¶30

10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed. However, both the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶31

11. 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.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

( Radhakishan Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶34

Saurabh

Yakub Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yakub Khan 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

Smt. Kuldeep Kour Vs The United India Insurance Company Limited

Ramesh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Kumar Jagnayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Kumar Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandeep Vs State of C.G.

Seetaram Jagat Vs State Of Chhattisgarh