Laximi Narayan Yadav @ Lala Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.01.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in S.T. No. 27/2006 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

¶15

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 456 of IPC R.I. for 02	year with fine of Rs.
1000/-; in	default ofpayment

¶16

2

¶17

of fine amount additional R.I. for 03 month.

¶18

2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.05.2006 in the night, while prosecutrix was sleeping in her room and her inmates were sleeping in the adjacent room. Around midnight at 12:00 Am, neighbour Lakshminarayan Yadav entered in the house and room of the prosecutrix and grabbed her arms and legs. When the prosecutrix woke up, she resisted and shouted for help. On being resisted and shouted by the prosecutrix, the accused fled away. Thereafter, the prosecutrix told her husband and neighbours about the said incident and filed a report in Akaltara Police Station. On the basis of report lodged by the prosecutrix, offence was registered against the present appellant/accused U/s 354, 456 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act.

¶19

3 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecutrix has examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited 07 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case and has examined 01 witness and exhibited 02 documents in his defence.

¶20

4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.01.2007, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in

¶21

3

¶22

para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶23

5 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2006, and thereby more than 18 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about more than 43 years and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 03 months, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶24

6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant.

¶25

7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment.

¶26

8 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses, Prosecutrix (PW-1), Fekuram (PW-2), Kartik Ram (PW-3) and Aghan Kumar (PW-4), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 456 of IPC.

¶27

9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 29.05.2006 about more than 18 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there is no previous criminal record of the appellant

¶28

4

¶29

and he has already remained in jail for about 03 months, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶30

10 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back the appellant to jail. Hence, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e., about 03 months instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 02 years for the offence punishable under Section 456 of IPC. However, the fine amount of Rs. 1000/imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 456 of IPC shall remain intact.

¶31

11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.

¶32

12 Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶33

13 Record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶36

Sourabh P.

Laximi Narayan Yadav @ Lala v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laximi Narayan Yadav @ Lala 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

Gajanand Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhaneshwar Rajwade Dead Through Lrs Vs Jhanku Ram

Kanta @ Kamta Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jhuna @ Sujit Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harish @ Praveen Vs State of Chhattisgarh