Chhotelal Yadav and Anr. Vs State of Chattisgarh

1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2007 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Korba (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 107/2006 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :

¶17

Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.02.21 10:19:20 +0530

¶18

2

¶19

Name of the Appellant	Conviction	Sentence
Chhote Lal Yadav (A-1)	U/s 354 of IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 1 month.
		Rigorous imprisonment for 6
Smt. Samara Bai (A-2)	U/s 109/354 of IPC	months with fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 15 days.

¶20

2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.04.2004 at about 10:30 am, when the prosecutrix was alone in her house, at that time appellant No. 2 Samara Bai came there and asked her to visit her house, but she denied and stated that she will go for taking bath, then she again requested to come, thereafter she will also go with her for taking bath, thereafter she came in the house of appellant No. 2. Further, the case of the prosecution is that appellant No. 2 left her house with the children of the prosecutrix, thereafter appellant No. 1 Chhote Lal who was also present inside the house came there and caught her hand and thrown to her on the earth and tried to out raise her modesty, anyhow she ran away from there and narrated the whole incident before the relatives and villager and reported the matter to the police. Based on which, an FIR was registered against the appellants and after due investigation charge sheet was filed.

¶21

3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 7

¶22

3

¶23

documents. The statement of the appellants was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

¶24

4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2007, learned Judge has acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section 376(1) or 376(1) r/w Section 109 of IPC. However, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶25

5 Learned counsel for the appellants 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 2004, and thereby more than 20 years have rolled by since then. At present, appellant No.1 Chhote Lal Yadav is aged about 55 years who has already remained in jail for about 7 days and appellant No.2 Samara Bai is aged about 65 years who has already remained in jail for about 1 day, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

4

¶29

8 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Pardeshi Ram (PW-1), Teej Ram (PW-2), Victim/Complainant (PW-3), Premgiri (PW-4), Fatte Kumar (PW-5), Anjor Sahu (PW-6), Asha (PW-7) and Lallan Singh (PW-8), 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 appellant No.1 for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and conviction of appellant No. 2 for the offence under Section 109 r/w Section 354 of IPC.

¶30

9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2004 about 20 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that at present, appellant No.1 Chhote Lal Yadav is aged about 55 years who has already remained in jail for about 7 days and appellant No.2 Samara Bai is aged about 65 years who has already remained in jail for about 1 day, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them.

¶31

10 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back the appellants to jail. Hence, appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months for the offences punishable under Section 354 of IPC and 109 r/w Section 354 of IPC. However, the fine imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact.

¶32