Harish @ Praveen Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 27/2008 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

¶15

Conviction Sentence

¶16

2

¶17

	R.I. for 06 mo	nths with fine of
U/s 354 of IPC	Rs. 1000/-; payment of	in default of fine amount
	additional R.I.	for 01 month.

¶18

2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.05.2008, the victim Anita Netam along with her sister Poonam Netam and brother Rajesh was returning from a computer center at warehouse chowk. As they reached near transformer at Kududand, the accused Harish @ Praveen started harassing the victim with indecent language and pulled her dupatta. Earlier, the accused had threatened Anita, saying he would harm her if she married someone else. Anita informed her mother Saraswati Netam about the said incident on the same day and filed an FIR at the Civil Lines Police Station. After completing the investigation, a chargesheet was filed and offence was registered against the present appellant/accused U/s 354, 506 of IPC and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 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 06 witnesses and exhibited 05 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 01 witness.

¶20

4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2008, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and convicted and

¶21

3

¶22

sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶23

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 place in the year 2008, and thereby more than 16 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about more than 43 years and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 03 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, Victim (PW-1), Poonam (PW2), Rajesh (PW-3), Saraswati (PW-4), 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 13.05.2008 about more than 16 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there is no previous criminal record of the appellant

¶28

4

¶29

and he has already remained in jail for about 03 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.

¶30

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., about 03 days instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 06 months for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. However, the fine amount of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC shall remain intact.

¶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/-

¶35

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶36

Sourabh P.

Harish @ Praveen v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish @ Praveen 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

Gajanand Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhaneshwar Rajwade Dead Through Lrs Vs Jhanku Ram

Laximi Narayan Yadav @ Lala Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanta @ Kamta Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jhuna @ Sujit Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh