Appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 354 IPC for outraging a woman's modesty by snatching her salwar. Conviction affirmed on the complainant's testimony; sentence reduced to period already undergone considering the appellant's age and time spent in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2025:CGHC:18007
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2016
Vishvanath @ Raju Yadav S/o Shri Khamhan Prasad Yadav Aged About 31 Years Occupation Labour, R/o Village Jagdalla, Champa, Police Station Champa, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Anusuchit Jati Kalyan Janjgir, Civil And ... Respondent
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Anusuchit Jati Kalyan Janjgir, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
For Appellant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Rishabh Singh Deo, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Judgment on Board
(21.04.2025)
1. Today when the matter is called out for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, therefore, requested for assistance from a counsel of the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee, Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate has been nominated to assist the Court.
2. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted both by Advocate,
2
Mr. Pushkar Sinha through the High Court Legal Services Committee and Learned State Counsel. In view of (2014) 14 SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh) , I do not consider it necessary to adjourn this case and issue fresh notice to the appellant as his interest has been duly taken care of by nominating another counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee.
3. This appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.01.2016 (Annexure A/1) passed by Special Session Judge, Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh in Special Session Trial No. 110/2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 01 year with fine of Rs. 5,00/- (five hundred) failing which further rigorous imprisonment for 02 months(fine
amount has already been deposited by the accused appellant before the
learned trial court).
4. The case in nutshell is that on 03.01.2013 the complainant Ku. Rani Satnami who is said to be 18 years of age lodged an
3
FIR against the appellant stating that when she was returning back to her home along with her sister-in-law, the accused appellant along with one another boy who stated to be the resident of her society only stopped her. When she didn’t
stopped, he snatched her pants(Salwar) from behind and grabbed her right hand. Initially a zero FIR was lodged. Thereafter the FIR got registered in Janjgir Police Station and the investigation took place.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses. Statements of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein accused/appellant has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law, perverse and is liable to be set aside. He stated that the prosecution agency have failed to seize the clothes which was worn by the complainant during the course of action.
7. He also contended that at the time of incident i.e. on 03.01.2013 the maximum punishment prescribed under
4
Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was up to two years or fine amount or both. However later the section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, was amended as:-
" shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both", the words "shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine “shall be substituted”.
Therefore, he prays that the jail sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
8. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court by stating that the learned trial court after making due diligence has passed the judgment, therefore, there is no need of interference.
9. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused entire evidence adduced by the complainant and gone through the evidence available on record with utmost circumspection.
10. Complainant PW-06 in her deposition has specifically and categorically stated the happening of that day. She stated that when she along with her sister-in-law PW-07 was coming back
5
to her home, the accused appellant grabbed her from the neck and snatched her pants(salwar) from behind and toured it. Upon which her sister in law asked him why is he doing like this. Thereafter both of them went back to their house and narrated everything to her mother and lodged a zero FIR against the present appellant.
11. PW-07 Umesh Bai has supported the statement of the complainant. PW-01 Padma Mahant who is the sole eye witness of the incident stated in her deposition that she has not given any statement and how come the police has registered her statement, she is not aware of it.
12. However, considering the statements of complainant and other witnesses, it is crystal clear that the appellant stopped the complainant when she was going back to her home along with her sister in law and grabbed her. Thereafter snatched her pants from behind, thus tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant, hence, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code.
13. It is crystal clear that the incident took place before the amendment of Section 354 of Indian Penal code. The amendment was from effect from 03.02.2013 and the incident
6
took place on 03.01.2013. Also there is no previous enmity by and between the parties.
14. So far the sentence part is concerned. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of the appellant was 31 year at the time of commission of the offence and particularly the appellant is facing lis from last 12 years, he was in jail from 04th January, 2013 to 10th January, 2013 and thereafter from 28th of November, 2015 to 10th of December, 2015. After passing of judgment by the learned trial court he remained in jail from 28th of January, 2016 to 19th of February, 2016 in this case, I am of the view that the end of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the appellant, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Fine amount has already been paid by the appellant.
15. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed . The conviction of the appellant under Section 354 of the IPC is affirmed and against the conviction he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
16. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. His bail bonds is not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the
7
Cr.P.C.
17. Records of the trial court be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge
alfiza
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 354 IPC for outraging the modesty of the complainant was justified.
Whether the jail sentence should be reduced to period already undergone given the pre-amendment maximum punishment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surya Baksh Singh V. State of Uttar PradeshRelied on¶2
(2014) 14 SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh) · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Vishvanath @ Raju Yadav S/o Shri Khamhan Prasad Yadav
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Anusuchit Jati Kalyan Janjgir
Arvind Kumar Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
