Chattisgarh High Court
Premlal Sarthi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 August, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 327 of 2020
Premlal Sarthi S/o Shri Jay Sarthi Aged About 34 Years R/o
Village Uchhbhatti, Schoolpara Thana Sipat, Civil And Revenue
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Bilaspur,
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Appellant :Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate.
For State/Respondent :Mr. HS Ahluwalia, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Judgment on Board
02.08.2021
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
27.01.2020 passed in Special Criminal Case (POCSO)
No.04/2017 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act 2012),
Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.) wherein, the Appellant has
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323
of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months and to
pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation.
2. According to the case of prosecution, complainant Pritam Das
lodged a report in Police Station Sipat with the averment that
on the date of incident i.e. 12.12.2016, one cow entered in his
house and her daughter was trying to get out that cow from
their house meanwhile, she was abusing the cow at that
juncture the Appellant said why she is abusing him and
started beating her daughter by hands due to that she
sustained injuries on her body. On the basis of above, the
matter was reported and offence has been registered against
the Appellant. Later on statements of witnesses recorded
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed by the Police. Trial Court framed the
charges against the Appellant under Sections 354, 323, 294,
506 Part II of the IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act. To
robe the Appellant in the crime-in-question, the prosecution
has examined as many as 15 witnesses. In the statement of
the Appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he has
pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter,
however, no defence witness was examined by the Appellant.
3. After completion of trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced
the Appellant as mentioned in Para 01 of this judgment.
Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that he
does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his
argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that
out of 3 months of jail sentence, the Appellant has already
undergone about 25 days in jail, he has no criminal
antecedent and he is facing the lis since 2016. Therefore, the
jail sentence awarded to the Appellant may be reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeal
and supported the impugned judgment.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties and perused the record minutely.
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly considering the fact that out of 3 months of jail
sentence, the Appellant has already undergone about 25 days
in jail, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis
since 2016. I am of the view that the ends of justice would be
met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the
Appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
8. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of
the Appellant under Section 323 of the IPC is affirmed and
against the conviction, he is sentenced to the period already
undergone by him. The fine sentence for the above offence is
also affirmed.
9. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of
this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Shubham
