Manoj Dheewar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 507 Chatt

                                                                   NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        CRA No. 983 of 2018

      Manoj Dheewar S/o Sundar Lal Aged About 20 Years R/o Village
       Rinwa, Police Station Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur
       Chhattisgarh.

                                                            ---- Appellant

                                     Versus

      State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
        Station Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

                                                         ---- Respondent

For Appellant :Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate. For State/Respondent :Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board 23.06.2021

1. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the

parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

27.06.2018 passed in Special Criminal Case No.108/2017 by

the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.)

wherein, the Appellant has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and sentenced to

undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, with

default stipulation.

3. According to the case of prosecution, at the relevant time, age

of the prosecutrix was about 17 years. On 21.03.2017, father

of the prosecutrix Baisakhu Yadav lodged a report in

concerned Police Station alleging therein that the Appellant

on the pretext of marriage, abducted her minor daughter and

taken her with him. On the basis of said report, offence has

been registered against the Appellant. On 28.03.2017, the

prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the

Appellant thereafter, her statement was recorded under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. On the basis her statement, FIR has

been registered. Statement of other witnesses were also

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. To robe the

Appellant in the crime-in-question, the prosecution has

examined as many as 16 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.

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

since there was a love relationship between the Appellant and

the prosecutrix, therefore, presently they both have performed

marriage and one child has also born from their wedlock and

they both have resided happily with each other. The Counsel

further submits that the Appellant was already undergone

about 8 months in jail. He has no criminal antecedents and he

is facing the lis since 2018. 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 that the Appellant is facing the lis

since 2018, there is no criminal antecedents against him and

the Appellant and the prosecutrix have performed marriage

with each other. 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 363 of the IPC is affirmed and

against the conviction he is sentenced to the period already

undergone by him. The fine sentence for the offence

punishable under Section 363 of the IPC is also affirmed.

9. It is reported that the Appellant is on bail. His bail bond is not

discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative

for a further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of

the Cr.P.C.

10. 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