Mayank Soni @ Sonu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.06.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Durg (C.G.) in Special Case No.31/2005, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 451, 323 & 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo

¶17

2

¶18

simple imprisonment for 7 days, simple imprisonment for 7 days and RI for 6 months, respectively.

¶19

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.03.2005 at about 1 am, the appellant entered into house of complainant when she was sleeping after taking dinner alone on the cot and her husband Dharamraj (P.W.-06) was also sleeping on another cot and light was on, then the appellant caught her breast and took her out of the cot and forced on her with intent to outrage her modesty. On raising voice her husband and father in law came there but the accused/ appellant did not run away and also caused simple injury to the father in law (P.W.-01) of complainant. She ran away from the spot and took shelter in the house of Nichu Lal (P.W.-04), the accused/ appellant reached there too, when Nichu tried to intervene with the accused/ appellant caught the neck of Nichu Lal and took her under fear of being killed. The accused/ appellant acted this having known that the complainant) belongs to a weaker caste. She remained in the house of Nichu Lal throughout the night and second day on 30-03-2005 she lodged complaint at the police station concerned. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused and he was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the Magistrate concerned.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material

¶21

3

¶22

available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The father-in-law of the complainant had old rivalry with the appellant which has also been admitted by the complainant despite that the learned Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant, hence prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

¶23

Alternatively,

¶24

He submits that the incident took place in the year 2005, this appeal is pending since 2009, the appellant remained in jail for about 15 days and has never misused the liberty granted by this Court and presently he is aged about 47 years, therefore, the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶25

Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

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

¶27

It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the

¶28

4

¶29

learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 452, 354, 323 (two times), 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 3 (1) (11) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 323 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (11) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as regards injuries of Michchulal and convicted and sentenced him, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

¶30

PW-1 Punaram stated that on the date of incident, the accused beaten him and also snatched hairs of his daughter-in-law and also tried to outrage modesty of her daughter-in-law, then he lodged report at the police station.

¶31

PW-2 Smt. Bena Bai stated that the accused committed maarpeet with her husband and snatched hairs of her daughterin-law and also assaulted her by his leg.

¶32

PW-4 Michchu Lal has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of the prosecution.

¶33

PW-5 complainant Kuwariya Bai stated that the accused committed maarpeet with her mother-in-law and father-in-law and also tried to molest her, thereafter they lodged FIR (Ex-P/2).

¶34

PW-6 Dharamraj supported the statement of his wife the

¶35

5

¶36

complainant.

¶37

The learned Trial Court minutely appreciated the statements of all the witnesses and rightly acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 3 (1) (11) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) and rightly convicted him for the offence under Sections 451, 323 & 354 of IPC.

¶38

As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2005, this appeal is pending since 2009, the appellant remained in jail for about 15 days and has never misused the liberty granted by this Court and presently he is aged about 47 years, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶39

The appeal is partly allowed.

¶40

The appellant is reported to be on bail.

¶41

Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the Court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶42

The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be

¶43

6

¶44

sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for

¶45

compliance and necessary action.

¶46

Rajani Dubey Judge

¶47

Nirala

Mayank Soni @ Sonu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank Soni @ Sonu 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

Satvir Saini Vs Jogendar Singh

Munshiram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nilesh Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh @ Loha Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishna @ Dablu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sarjan @Sarvan @Sharvan Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh