Partly allowed¶31

Hemant Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Feb 2025CRA/517/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hemant Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh; CRA No. 517 of 2011; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; decided 17/02/2025 by Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.; Section 354 IPC outraging modesty; conviction upheld; sentence reduced to period already undergone (11 days); fine enhanced Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 3000/- with default R.I. 02 months; Section 437-A Cr.P.C. bail bonds; acquittal under Sections 506-B IPC and 3(1)(xi) SC & ST Act not disturbed; Special Judge Raipur; Special Session Trial No. 68/2010; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of R.I. 06 months reduced to period already undergone (11 days); fine enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 3000/- with default R.I. 02 months and adjustment of prior deposits; bail bonds to continue for a further period of 6 months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.; trial Court record to be sent back with a copy of the judgment.

Hemant Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 354 IPC recorded by the trial Court suffers from any illegality. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

No illegality in the trial Court's findings; conviction of the appellant under Section 354 IPC is upheld.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the incident of 17.08.2010 (more than 14 years ago) and the about 11 days already spent in jail, the ends of justice are served by sentencing the appellant to the period already undergone (11 days) instead of R.I. 06 months.

¶28

Key takeaways

The fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 3000/-, payable failing which the appellant shall undergo R.I. 02 months; any fine already deposited is to be adjusted.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J., 17/02/2025) in CRA No. 517 of 2011, Hemant Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh [NAFR]: Conviction of the appellant under Section 354 IPC by the learned Special Judge, Raipur in Special Session Trial No. 68/2010 was upheld, the Court finding no illegality in the trial Court's findings. Counsel for the appellant did not press the conviction and confined the appeal to sentence. Considering that the incident took place on 17.08.2010 (more than 14 years earlier) and the appellant had already remained in jail for about 11 days, the sentence of R.I. 06 months was reduced to the period already undergone; however, the fine of Rs. 1000/- was enhanced to Rs. 3000/-, failing payment of which the appellant was to undergo R.I. 02 months, with any deposit made to be adjusted. Appeal allowed in part; bail bonds directed to continue for six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by SOURABH SOURABH PATEL PATEL Date: 2025.02.18 14:01:01 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:8208

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 517 of 2011

¶7

Hemant Sahu, Aged about 32 years, S/o Sewakram Sahu, R/o Purgaon, Police Station Bilaigarh, District-Raipur (C.G.).

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bilaigarh, DistrictRaipur (C.G.).

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

: For Appellant Mr. Manoj Jaiswal. For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

¶14

17/02/2025

¶15

1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.06.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.), in Special Session Trial No. 68/2010 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

¶16

Conviction	Sentence
	R.I. for 06 months with fine of Rs.
U/s 354 of IPC	1000/-; in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 03
	months.

¶17

¶18

2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix resides in Gram Bisanpur and studies at a school in Pawan. Her father had given their house fan to Hemant Sah for repairing. When the prosecutrix on 17.08.2010 at about 03:00 PM, while returning from her school went to collect the fan, the present accused/appellant took her to an empty house and attempted to outrage her modesty and threatened to kill her. Thereafter, the prosecutrix informed her family members about the incident. On the same day, the prosecutrix has lodged report against the present appelant at Police Station Bilaigarh and the offence was registered against the present appellant under Section 354, 506-B of IPC and 3(1)(xi) of Schedule Castes and Schedule 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 05 witnesses and exhibited 09 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 only 01 witness in his defence

¶20

4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.06.2011, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 506-B of IPC and 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

place in the year 2010, and thereby more than 14 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about more than 46 years and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 11 days, 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), Dileep Tandon (PW02), 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 354 of IPC.

¶27

9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 17.08.2010 about more than 14 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the appellant has already remained in jail for about 11 days, 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.

¶28

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., 11 days instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 06 months for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. However, the fine amount of

¶29

¶30

Rs. 1000/- imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC is hereby enhanced to Rs. 3000/which shall be payable, failing which the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I. 02 months. Fine, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted in the fine imposed/enhanced by this Court today .

¶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/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶35

Sourabh P.

Hemant Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Sahu 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

Banarsi Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh @ Bhurwa Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Kumar @ Bhopali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Aasin Verma