Tilesh Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

Tilesh Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision partly allowed: conviction of the applicant under Section 354 IPC affirmed; jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone; fine sentence imposed by the concerned Trial Court affirmed; bail bond to remain in force for six months under Section 437-A CrPC.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the applicant under Section 354 IPC, as recorded by the JMFC and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, was sustainable and ought to be affirmed in revision - noting that learned counsel for the applicant expressly did not press the revision on merits and confined his argument to the sentence part only. +1 more

Court's answer

The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, being based on the evidence available on record (statements of PW-1 victim/prosecutrix supported by PW-2 Devrat Yadav and PW-4 Oswal Yadav, coupled with contents of FIR Ex-P1), are correct findings; the conviction under Section 354 IPC is affirmed.

Ratio / Principle

While upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the jail sentence to the period already undergone, given his 10 days in jail (26.11.2012 to 05.12.2012), the lis pending since October 2010 (more than 13 years), absence of criminal antecedents, and the fine amount already deposited by him.

Key takeaways

Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the order, in view of Section 437-A CrPC.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL REVISION (S. 397/401 CrPC) — CONVICTION UNDER S. 354 IPC AFFIRMED; SENTENCE REDUCED TO PERIOD ALREADY UNDERGONE. Revision against judgment dated 26.11.2012 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujaganj in Criminal Appeal No. 148/2011, which had partly allowed the appellant's appeal while confirming the JMFC, Ambikapur judgment dated 01.10.2011 (Criminal Case No. 567 of 2010) convicting him under S. 354 IPC (S.I. 6 months; fine Rs. 500/-, default additional S.I. 15 days) for allegedly catching hold of a prosecutrix grazing her cow in the forest on 20.10.2010 and trying to outrage her modesty. Counsel for the applicant expressly did not press the revision on merits and confined himself to the sentence. Court found the concurrent lower-court findings correct on the strength of PW-1 (victim/prosecutrix), PW-2 Devrat Yadav (victim's brother), PW-4 Oswal Yadav and FIR Ex-P1, and affirmed the conviction. On sentence, given 10 days' custody (26.11.2012–05.12.2012), pendency of the lis for over 13 years since October 2010, absence of criminal antecedents and deposit of the fine, jail sentence reduced to period already undergone while upholding the conviction and affirming the fine. Bail bond directed to remain in force for six months under S. 437-A CrPC. Marked NAFR. Caution: source ¶17 inconsistently prints that the Trial Court both 'acquitted' and 'convicted' the applicant under S. 354 IPC; no other section is named in the order.

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:40695

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRR No. 772 of 2012

Tilesh Yadav S/o Mohan Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Jampani , P.S. & Tahsil Shankargarh ,Distt. Surguja , Present Address Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Applicant

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - SHO, P.S. Shankargarh, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents

For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. M. Asha P.L. for the State.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

Order on Board

16.10.2024

Heard.

1 . The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 26.11.2012 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujaganj, Distt. Balrampur, Ramanujgaj

2 / 4

(C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 148/2011 whereby, the appeal filed by the applicant was partly allowed while confirming the judgment dated 01.10.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, Distt – Surguja (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 567 of 2010, by virtue of which the applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for 6 months with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional S.I. for 15 days. 2 . Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.10.2010 at about 4 P.M. prosecutrix, went to the forest for grazing the cow at that time the applicant/accused came there, caught hold of her, tried to outrage her modesty and misbehaved with her. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under the aforesaid section was registered against the applicant.

3 . After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 354 of IPC was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, Ambikapur, Distt – Surguja (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4 . Learned Trial Court (JMFC) after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the applicant for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and convicted the applicant for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in para one of this order. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide order dated 26.11.2012 confirmed the conviction and sentence as mentioned in Para 1 of this order. Hence, this revision.

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

3 / 4

sentence part only. He further submits that the applicant remained in jail for 10 days i.e. from 26.11.2012 to 05.12.2012, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the li s since October 2010, i.e. for more than 13 years. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Fine amount has already deposited by the applicant before the trial Court.

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

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

8 . Considering the statements of PW-1(victim/prosecutrix) supported by PW2 Devrat Yadav (brother of the victim), PW-4 Oswal Yadav coupled with the contents of FIR Ex-P1 and the 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 and I hereby affirm the conviction.

9 . As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the applicant remained in jail for 10 days i.e. 26.11.2012 to 05.12.2012, he is facing the lis since October 2010 i.e. for more than 13 years and there is no criminal antecedents 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. Further, the fine amount already deposited by the applicant.

4 / 4

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. However, the fine sentence imposed by the concerned Trial Court is affirmed.

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.

Sd/-

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

Vaibhav