Partly allowed¶17

Paramjeet @ Bunty Gilhare v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC24 Apr 2026CRA/254/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 363 IPC kidnapping conviction affirmed; Sections 366/376 IPC acquittal upheld; sentence reduction to period already undergone; plea bargaining cannot dispose of criminal cases; prosecutrix age above 16 below 18 proved by kotwar birth register Ex.P-15; no minimum sentence under Section 363 IPC; bail bond six months Section 437-A Cr.P.C. / Section 481 BNSS; Chhattisgarh High Court CRA No. 254 of 2008; Rajani Dubey, J.; decided 25/04/2026; NAFR (non-reportable).

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed: conviction under Section 363 IPC maintained, jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone, and bail bond kept in operation for six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (Section 481 BNSS). ¶17

Paramjeet @ Bunty Gilhare Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's conviction of the appellant under Section 363 IPC (with acquittal under Sections 366 and 376 IPC) called for interference, given that the appeal was not pressed on merits. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Findings of the trial Court affirmed: acquittal under Sections 366 and 376 IPC upheld and conviction under Section 363 IPC maintained; the Court found no reason to interfere, accepting the witnesses' proof of the prosecutrix's age (above 16 and below 18 years per kotwar birth register Ex.P-15).

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Although the appeal was not pressed on merits, the Court held it is settled law that criminal cases cannot be disposed of on the basis of plea bargaining and must be decided on merits.

¶13

Key takeaways

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone: the incident occurred about 19 years earlier (year 2007), the appellant was about 22 at the time and about 41 now, had undergone about 6 months' imprisonment, never misused bail, and no minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 363 IPC, so no useful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail.ratio¶16
Consequential direction: the appellant, reported to be on bail, is to have his bail bond remain in operation for six months in view of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (new Section 481 BNSS).ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur (Rajani Dubey, J.), CRA No. 254 of 2008, decided 25/04/2026 (NAFR): Appeal against conviction under Section 363 IPC with acquittal under Sections 366 and 376 IPC (trial Court, 9th Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur, S.T. No.219/2007, judgment dated 21.02.2008, R.I. 03 years + fine Rs.200/-). Counsel did not press the appeal on merits, confining arguments to sentence; the Court held that criminal cases cannot be disposed of on plea bargaining and decided the case on merits, affirming the trial Court's findings — the prosecutrix was proved to be above 16 and below 18 years of age per the kotwar birth register (Ex.P-15). Considering the incident occurred about 19 years earlier, the appellant (about 22 then, about 41 now) had undergone about 6 months' imprisonment, had not misused bail, and no minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 363 IPC, the jail sentence was reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction; bail bond directed to remain in operation for six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (new Section 481 BNSS).

2026:CGHC:19096

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 254 of 2008

¶6

Paramjeet @ Bunty Gilhare, son of Shri Preetam Singh Gilhare, aged about 22 years, Occupation Labour, resident of village Seoni, Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Police Station – Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Amit Verma, P.L.

¶12

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶13

Judgment On Board

¶14

25/04/2026

¶15

This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.2008 passed by the learned 9^th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.219/2007, whereby the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused/appellant of

¶16

¶17

the charge under Sections 366, 376 of IPC, convicted him under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. 03 years with fine of Rs.200/-, plus default stipulation.

¶18

Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 12.06.2007 at about 1:00 p.m., the complainant’s daughter-in-law (PW-3), had gone to the bore-well to fetch water. At that time, the complainant’s daughter (PW-1), aged about 16 years, was proceeding towards the village to answer the call of nature. On the way, accused/appellant Paramjeet alias Bunty made her sit on his motorcycle and took her away. At that time, complainant/father of prosecutrix (PW-2) had gone to Village Datrenga as a guest. When he returned at about 6:00 p.m., his daughter-in-law (PW-3) informed him of the incident. Thereafter, at about 11:45 p.m., he lodged a report at Police Outpost Abhanpur, Raipur vide Ex.P-7. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 180/2007 was registered. After registration of the FIR, on 13.06.2007, the Investigating Officer Shri Jugal Kishore (PW-12) proceeded the place of occurrence, and prepared the spot map (Nazri Naksha) in the presence of witnesses vide Ex.P-2. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded. Further prosecution case is that on 13.06.2007 at about 7:00 a.m., the accused abandoned the prosecutrix (PW-1) and fled away.

¶19

¶20

Thereafter, Prosecutrix (PW-1) was medically examined by a lady doctor after obtaining consent vide Ex. P-7 from her father (PW-2) and consent Ex. P-1 from prosecutrix (PW-1) herself. Subsequently, permission of the SDM, Raipur, vide Ex. P-17 was also obtained for conducting her medical examination. As per seizure memo Ex. P-5, one ladies’ undergarment belonging to the prosecutrix (PW-1) was seized in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, Prosecutrix (PW-1) was sent for medical examination along with application Ex.P-12A. The seized undergarment was sealed and forwarded to the doctor for examination along with application Ex.P-13A. For determination of age, prosecutrix (PW-1) was referred to Dr. Ambedkar Hospital for X-ray examination. After her medical examination, the slides prepared by the doctor were seized vide seizure memo Ex. P-18. From Kotwar Gambhir Das (PW-9) of Village Sivni, the birth and death register relating to the date of birth of prosecutrix (Pw-1) was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P-9. From accused Paramjeet, the motorcycle used in the incident was seized in the presence of witnesses vide seizure memo Ex. P-10. The accused was also sent to Abhanpur Hospital for medical examination along with requisition Ex. P-11A.

¶21

As per Ex. P-19, the slides prepared after medical

¶22

¶23

examination of accused Paramjeet were seized. Certified copy of the birth and death register, Ex. P-15C, was taken on record and the original register was returned to Kotwar Gambhir Das (PW-9). The registration documents of motorcycle bearing No. CG-04/CJ-7718 used in the incident, were seized from Pawan Kumar Kurre vide seizure memo Ex. P-14. On 21.08.2007, accused Paramjeet was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P-20. The seized clothes and slides were forwarded through the Deputy Inspector General of Police to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.

¶24

After completion of usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, from where the case was transferred to the Court of Special Judge.

¶25

After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC, to which the accused/appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.

¶26

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶27

¶28

The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, while acquitting the appellant of the charge under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶29

Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merit and confined his argument to the sentence part only. It was contended that the incident took place in the year 2007 i.e. about 19 years back, the appellant at the time of incident was aged around 22 years and by now he is aged around 41 years, he has already remained in jail for about 6 months, he never misused the liberty of bail granted to him and minimum sentence under Section 363 is not prescribed, as such, no useful purpose would be served in again sending him back to jail, therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶30

On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the learned State counsel that conviction of the accused/appellant is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same.

¶31

It is apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC against the appellant & after

¶32

¶33

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellant of the charge under Sections 366, 376 of IPC, convicted him under Sections 363 of IPC.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶35

Though the appeal is not being pressed on merits and the learned counsel for the appellant confined his argument to the sentence part thereof only. However, it is settled law that on the basis of plea bargaining, the court cannot dispose of the criminal cases. The Court has to decide it on merits.

¶36

In the instant case, considering the testimonies of prosecutrix (PW-1), father of prosecutrix (PW-2), sister-inlaw of prosecutrix (PW-3), Neelkamal Gilhare (PW-4), Vijay Tandon (PW-6), Dr. S.D. Kanwar (PW-7) and Gambhir Das Manikpuri (PW-9), who have duly proved the age of the prosecutrix as per the birth register of the kotwar (Ex.P-15), that at the time of incident she was above 16 and below 18 years of age, the trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly acquitted the accused/appellant of the charge under Sections 366, 376 of IPC, and held him guilty under Section 363 of IPC. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said findings recorded by the learned trial Court and therefore, the same

¶37

¶38

is hereby affirmed.

¶39

The only question which arises for consideration by this Court is as to what would be the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon the accused/appellant.

¶40

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the fact that the incident took place in the year 2007 i.e. about 19 years back, the appellant at the time of incident was aged around 22 years and by now he is aged around 41 years, he has already remained in jail for about 06 months, he never misused the liberty of bail and no minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 363 IPC, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail at this stage, and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶41

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 363 of IPC, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶42

The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (new Section 481 of BNSS).

¶43