Sanjay Bachad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer For Complainant : Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Wasim Miyan, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

¶14

03.03.2025

¶15

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2007 passed by learned 2^nd Additional Session Judge (FTC), North Bastar Kanker, in Sessions Trial No. 124/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:

¶16

2

¶17

Conviction	Sentence
u/s 363 of IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine, 1 year additional R.I.
u/s 366 of IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine, 1 year additional R.I.
u/s 376 of IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine, 1 year additional R.I.

¶18

2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that, on 14.07.2005, the appellant herein is alleged to have kidnapped the minor victim (PW2) aged about 13 years from the lawful guardianship of her parents and committed sexual intercourse with her. It is also the case of prosecution that on 14.07.2005, the father of the victim lodged a report at Police Station Pakhanjur regarding his 13 year old daughter not returning from school. Based on which a missing report was registered and investigation was conducted. During investigation it was found that the appellant induced the victim and took her to Alapalli Malchura and committed sexual intercourse with her. The appellant was arrested on 07.09.2005. The victim was subjected to medical examination. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence.

¶19

3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness has been examined by the appellant in his defence.

¶20

4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as

¶21

3

¶22

mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment.

¶23

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the complainant and the appellant have jointly filed I.A. No.01/18 to compound the offence and reduce the sentence to the period already undergone on the basis of compromise. He submits that the appellant and the victim married on 25.01.2010 and they have two children out of the wedlock. Furthermore, out of maximum sentence of 7 years, the appellant has already remained in jail for about 1 year, 10 months. The incident occurred in the year 2005 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. Therefore, considering all these facts, the jail sentence of the Appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶24

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the conclusion given by the trial court regarding conviction and sentence of the appellant is based on sufficient and reliable evidence, which does not require any interference. Therefore, the contention made by the counsel for the appellant is not acceptable, hence, the appeal may be dismissed.

¶25

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

¶26

8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the victim (PW-2), her father (PW-3) and also the statement of Dr. Smt. Nisha Nawratan (PW-7) who medically examined the victim, establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the

¶27

4

¶28

conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of IPC, which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed/maintained.

¶29

9. The victim and the appellant have jointly filed I.A. No.01/18 for compounding the offence along with their affidavits. As per I.A. No. 01, the prosecutrix has settled her dispute with the appellant and got married to appellant. Out of the said marriage they have two children and they are living together peacefully. Therefore, the prosecutrix wants to close the case against the appellant.

¶30

10. Though the appellant and the victim entered into a compromise, the offences are not compoundable and therefore, I.A. No.01 is dismissed.

¶31

11. As regards sentence part, the Supreme Court in the matter of Baldev Singh and others v. State of Punjab (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 705 in paragraphs 4 & 5 held as under:-

¶32

“4. Section 376 is a non-compoundable offence. However, the fact that the incident is an old one, is a circumstance for invoking the proviso to Section 376(2)(g) and awarding a sentence of less than 10 years, which is ordinarily the minimum sentence under that provision, as we think that there are adequate and special reasons for doing so.

¶33

On the facts of the case, considering that the incident happened in the year 1997 and that the parties have themselves entered into a compromise, we uphold the conviction of the appellant but we reduce the sentence to the period of sentence already undergone by in view of the proviso to Section 376 (2)(g) which for adequate and special reasons permits imposition of a lesser sentence……...”

¶34

5

¶35

12. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) and taking into consideration the fact that the parties have themselves entered into compromise, the victim has married to the appellant and they have two children from the said marriage and also considering the fact that the Appellant is facing lis since 2005, i.e. about 20 years and he has already remained in jail for about 1 year 10 months, the conviction of the appellant is upheld but the jail sentence awarded to the Appellant for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact.

¶36

13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above.

¶37

14. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC.

¶38

15. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any.

¶39

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶40

Khatai

Sanjay Bachad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Bachad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bal Govind Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt Ramkali Vs Vijay Kumar

Paramjeet Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prem Kumar @ Premlal Kolta And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Murit Ram Dhuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arjun and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh