Milan Prasad Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2007 passed by the learned Session Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Special Session Trial No. 22/2007 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 509 of IPC	500/-, in default of payment of fine
	amount additional R.I. for 15 days.

¶17

2

¶18

2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.11.2006, when the complainant was returning from her field at about 05:30 pm, the accused made an obscene gesture and whistled. The next morning, the present appellant/accused made another gesture, but complainant ignored him and walked away. However, on 30.11.2006, at about 08 am, when complainant was going to the field with her mother-in-law, the accused made bad indication by his eyes and threatened her by using filthy language. Thereafter, the complainant has lodged report against the present appellant at Police Station and the offence was registered against the present appellant under Section 509, 506 Part-II, 294 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶19

3 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecutrix has examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 06 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 02 witnesses and exhibited 01 documents in his defence

¶20

4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2007, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 506 Part-II and 294 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 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

¶22

3

¶23

thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2006, and thereby more than 18 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about more than 65 years and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 05 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 Complainant (PW-2), Sawan Singh Kunwar (PW-04) and Charo Bai (PW-5) 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 509 of IPC.

¶27

9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 27.11.2006 about more than 18 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 05 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., 05 days instead of

¶29

4

¶30

suffering rigorous imprisonment for 06 months for the offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC. However, the fine amount of Rs. 500/- imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC is hereby enhanced to Rs. 2000/which shall be payable by the appellant, failing which the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 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.

Milan Prasad Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Milan Prasad Kashyap 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

Sanjay Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Aasin Verma

Chhotelal Yadav and Anr. Vs State of Chattisgarh

Ravishankar Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashish Datta Vs State of Chhattisgarh