Jiryus Minj vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 633 Chatt

                                          1

                                                                            NAFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
             Proceedings through Video Conferencing

                   Criminal Revision No.329 of 2008


     • Jiryus Minj, S/o. Siril Minj, Caste Uraon, Aged about 25
       years, R/o. Village Hundatoli Basen, Thana Bagicha, Distt.
       Jashpur (CG)
                                                                    ---- Applicant
                                      Versus
     • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bagicha,
       Distt. Jashpur (CG)
                                                                 ---- Respondent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Applicant : Ms. Monika Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For respondent/State : Mr. Afroj Khan, Panel Lawyer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order On Board 28.6.2021.

1. By this revision, the applicant has challenged legality and

propriety of the judgment dated 03.5.2008 passed by Sessions

Judge, Jashpur (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.04/2008, affirming

the conviction and sentence under Section 354 IPC passed by

the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha in Criminal Case

No.237/2008 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class

after holding the applicant guilty for the offence punishable under

Sections 354 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced him

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine

of Rs.250/-; RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.250/-

respectively with default stipulations. However, the appellate

Court while acquitting the accused for the offence under Section

456 IPC, he was convicted and sentenced under Sections 451 &

354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for six months and to pay fine of Rs.250/-; RI for six months and

to pay fine of Rs.250/- respectively with default stipulations

2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 16.3.2005,

complainant Ku. Manisha Minj (PW-1) was at her home, situated

at Village Ghughari Bartoli and at around 9.0'clock in the night,

the applicant came in her house, entered into the kitchen and

after showing the knife to the complainant, he caught hold the

hands of the complainant and dragged her to outside. On her

shouting, her mother Ignashiya Minj (PW-2) and maternal uncle

Vinay Kehss (PW-3) came there and on seeing them, the

applicant fled away from the spot. The matter was reported by

the complainant on 17.3.2005 at Police Station Kasabel and the

matter was investigated. Finally charge sheet was filed. After

affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha Distt. Jaspur convicted

and sentenced the applicant as aforementioned . The same was

challenged before the appellate Court and vide judgment

impugned the appellate Court has modified the conviction and

sentences as aforementioned.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

complainant is a wholly unreliable witness because there was

love affair between the applicant and the complainant but the

family members of the complainant were not happy with their

relationship, therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated

in the case. She further submits that on minute scrutiny of the

statement of the complainant, it appears that the prosecution

story is fabricated as the incident is said to have taken place in

the house of the prosecutrix where her family members are also

residing along with her. She further submits that there is major

contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution

witnesses.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the revision petition

and submits that both the Courts below have not committed any

error in passing the impugned orders, thus, the revision may be

rejected.

5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused

the judgment impugned, judgment of the trial Court and records

of the Courts below.

6. The complainant (PW-1) has stated that at the time of the

incident, the accused came to her house, caught hold her hands

and dragged her to outside with an intention to outrage her

modesty. She further stated that her mother Ignashiya (PW-2)

and maternal Uncle Vinay Khess (PW-3) were present in the

house at that time and on hearing her shouting, they came out

and saved her from the accused. On the next day, she went to

Police Station Kasabel with her mother and maternal uncle and

filed FIR (Ex-P/1) against the accused.

7. Statement of the complainant was fully corroborated by the

statements of her mother Ignashiya Minj (PW-2) and Vinay Khess

(PW-3). Avinash Minj (PW-4) is her brother . Although he has

stated different time and place about the incident, but on leading

questions put forth by the Court, he has also stated that at the

time of the incident, he was also present in the house and on

hearing the hue and cry, he woke up and saw the applicant

dragging his sister by holding her hands.

8. The above statements show that the statement of the

complainant is fully corroborated by her mother and maternal

uncle. The learned appellate court has after appreciating the

evidence rightly held that their statements cannot be disbelieved

only on the basis of their relation with the complainant.

9. In the cross-examination, the complainant has admitted

that she is well known to the accused, both of them had taken

photograph together and also she had gifted him handkerchief by

writing his name and making flower on it. But only on the basis of

this admission, it cannot be said that the applicant had gone to

the house of the complainant on her calling or both of them were

having love affair.

10. There is no material contradictions and omissions in the

cross-examination of the witnesses nor there is any ground to

disbelieve that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this

case. Looking to the above, and keeping minute observation of

the evidence available on record, I found that the learned

appellate Court has rightly convicted the applicant under Sections

451 and 354 of the IPC, therefore, I uphold the conviction

recorded by the learned appellate Court.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the incident

took place on 26.3.2005. The case is pending for more than 17

years and the applicant remained in custody for six days,

therefore, instead of sending him back to jail, the fine amount

may be enhanced and he may be sentenced for the period

already undergone by him.

12. As regard the sentence part is concerned, the incident

happened in the year 2005, at that time, the applicant was 25

years young man, he had been in jail for about 06 days, the

complainant and the applicant are the residents of Jashpur

district, therefore, looking to the totality of the case, I do not feel it

appropriate to send the applicant back to jail. I am of the view

that ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the

conviction awarded to the applicant, the jail sentences awarded

to him are restricted to the period already served by him besides

imposing/enhancing the amount of fine.

13. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. The

conviction awarded to the applicant under Sections 354 and 451

of the IPC is upheld. However, he is sentenced for the period

already undergone by him. So far as the sentence of fine is

concerned, the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs.250/- to

Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 354 IPC and also the

amount of fine is enhanced from Rs.250/- to Rs.1,000/- for the

offence under Section 451 IPC. The applicant is granted four

months time to deposit the above amount of fine, failing which he

shall be liable to undergo SI for one month for each count. If any

amount has already been deposited by the applicant towards

fine, the same shall be adjusted in the amount of fine imposed/

enhanced by this Court today.

14. The applicant is reported to be on bail. He need not

surrender. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six

months as per requiremen t of Section 437-A CrPC.

Sd/-

(N.K. Chandravanshi) JUDGE Bini