Jhuna @ Sujit Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Jhuna @ Sujit Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction under Section 376/511 IPC maintained; sentence of RI 5 years reduced to period already undergone (about 2 years 9 months); fine of Rs.200/- and default stipulation retained; appellant on bail need not surrender, bail bonds to remain in force for six months under Section 437-A CrPC.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction recorded by the trial court is legal, valid and correct (the ground on which the appeal was preferred, though counsel later did not press the appeal on merits). +1 more

Court's answer

On the evidence of the victim (PW-6), her brother (PW-2) and father (PW-7), this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the trial court's finding on conviction under Section 376/511 IPC and affirms the conviction.

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account that the incident took place in 2007 (about 18 years ago), that the appellant is now over 40 with family responsibility, and that he has already remained in jail for about 2 years 9 months, it would not be appropriate to send him back to jail; the ends of justice would be served by sentencing him to the period already undergone.

Key takeaways

Operative direction: conviction for offence under Section 376/511 IPC maintained; sentence of RI for 5 years reduced to the period already undergone, i.e. 2 years 9 months; the fine and its default stipulation imposed by the trial court remain intact.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 324 of 2008, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.; judgment dated 05.03.2025): Appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC against conviction under Section 376/511 IPC and sentence of RI 5 years with fine of Rs.200/- passed on 12.03.2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road in Sessions Trial No. P-43/2007. Appellant did not press the appeal on merits and argued only on sentence. Held: conviction based on testimony of the victim (PW-6), her brother (PW-2) and father (PW-7) affirmed; since the 2007 incident is about 18 years old, the appellant is now over 40 with family responsibilities and had already undergone about 2 years 9 months in jail, sentence reduced to the period already undergone; fine and default stipulation kept intact. Appeal partly allowed; appellant on bail need not surrender; bail bonds to remain in force for six months under Section 437-A CrPC.

1

Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.03.07 10:33:52 +0530

2025:CGHC:10963

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 324 of 2008

Jhuna @ Sujit Kumar Aged About 22 Years S/o Rambharos Gupta, R/o Dhobhar, Police Station Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur C.G.

... Appellant

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur C.G.

... Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Judgment on Board

05.03.2025

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 12.03.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. P-43/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 376/511 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 2 months.

2

2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that, on 26.02.2007, when the victim went to the house of appellant to give him Namkin Mixture , the appellant closed the door, made her lie on the bed and attempted to commit sexual intercourse with her. At that time, brother of the victim came to the house of appellant and called from outside, then the appellant left her and ran away. The victim informed her parents about the incident and thereafter the matter was reported at Police Station, Pendra, based on which FIR was registered against the appellant and after completion of investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence.

3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 17 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.

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

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 appellant is now more than 40 years of age and has family responsibilities and he has already remained in jail for about 2 years 9 months. The incident took place in the year 2007 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. This appeal is pending since 2008. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already

3

undergone by him in the interest of justice.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant.

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

8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of the victim (PW-6), her brother (PW-2) and father (PW-7), 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 conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 376/511 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed.

9. As regards the sentence part, the incident had taken place in the year 2007 i.e. about 18 years ago. At that time, the appellant was aged about 22 years and now he must be more than 40 years having family responsibility. The appellant is facing the lis since 2007 and he has already remained in jail for about 2 year, 9 months. Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to send back the appellant to jail and the ends of justice would serve if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 376/511 of IPC is maintained and the sentence of RI for 5 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 2 years 9 months. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact.

11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

4

12. 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.

13. 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.

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

Khatai