Gurudas Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (henceforth “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17^th September, 2021 passed by Upper Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special Court, Bilaspur (henceforth, “Special Court”) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No. 21/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted & sentenced in following manner :-

¶16

2

¶17

	Conviction	Sentence
Under	Section 363 of	RI for seven years and fine
IPC		of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
		payment of fine, to
		undergo additional SI for six months.
Under	Section 366 of	RI for seven years and fine
IPC		of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
		payment of fine, to
		undergo additional SI for
		six months.

¶18

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶19

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that appellant/accused abducted minor victim/prosecutrix, aged about 16 years, and took her to Ambala (Punjab). FIR was lodged by father of victim (PW-2) on 4.12.2018, thereafter, victim was recovered at CWC Office, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) vide recovery memo Ex.P-6. Statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.PC. was got recorded before concerned Judicial Magistrate. Statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. School record pertaining to the victim was seized. Spot map was prepared. Appellant was arrested.

¶20

3. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC and Section 18 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (henceforth, 'POCSO Act') was filed against the appellant before Special Court.

¶21

4. Learned Special Court framed charges under Section 363 & 366 of the IPC and Section 18 of the POCSO Act against the appellant, who abjured the guilt and claimed trial.

¶22

3

¶23

5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence of prosecution claiming himself to be innocent and false implication. No defence witness has been examined in support of the appellant / accused.

¶24

6. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned Special Judge vide its impugned judgment dated 17^th September, 2021 acquitted appellant of the offences under Section 18 of the POCSO Act, however, convicted him under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC and sentenced him ,as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment. Against which, instant appeal has been preferred the appellant questioning the same.

¶25

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

¶26

8. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal as regards conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. He further submits that in instant case appellant has remained in jail from 12.12.2018 to 22.5.2019 during trial and from 17.9.2021 to 5.9.2022 after his conviction and his releasing under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. on bail, thus, he has completed total 16 months of jail sentence, hence, interest of justice would be served if the jail sentence imposed upon appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶27

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would support the impugned judgment.

¶28

4

¶29

10. Victim (PW-1) has stated in her deposition that at the time of incident, her age was 15 years, which also get support from deposition of her father (PW-2) and mother (PW-3). Date of birth mentioned in School record also supported the fact that victim was below 16 years of age at the time of incident, thus, she was held minor, as has been held by learned Special Court.

¶30

11. So far as abduction part is concerned, it is very well proved from deposition of victim that the appellant had taken minor victim with him from her native place i.e. village Bohardih, District Bilaspur to Ambala (Punjab) without taking consent from her parents, therefore, conviction & sentence of appellant under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC is found to be based on evidence available on record. It is hereby affirmed.

¶31

12. So far as sentence part is concerned, appellant is young boy, aged about 22 years and he remained in jail for about 16 months i.e. from 12.12.2018 to 22.5.2019 during trial and from 17.9.2021 to 5.9.2022 after pronouncement of judgment by the Special Court, therefore, this court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in again sending him behind the bar for serving out remaining jail sentence and ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 16 months.

¶32

13. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment against the appellant is maintained, as also imposition of punishment of fine is also maintained but jail sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶33

5

¶34

14. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond shall remain in force for a further period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 481 of the of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶35

15. Record of the Special Judge alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and needful, if any.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)) Judge

¶38

AMITKUMAR Digitally signedby AMIT KUMARDUBEYDate: 2025.11.11 DUBEY 13:20:26 +0530

¶39

amit

Gurudas Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurudas Singh 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

Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs Shyampal Tamrakar

New Royal Travels Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prandhar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devli Bai Vs National Thermal Power Corporation

Vikash Bhoi, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Vs Santosh Satnami