Aseem Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3229 Chatt

                                                                     NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              CRA No. 171 of 2018

        Aseem Patel S/o Sewaram Patel, aged about 20 years, R/o 21
        Block-Mana Camp, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                             ---- Appellant

                                        Versus

        State of Chhattisgarh through The Station House Officer, Police
        Station-Mana Camp, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                           ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Ravish Verma, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Judgment on Board

18.11.2021

1. Though, this case has been listed for hearing on application

for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant,

but considering the fact that appellant is in jail since

05.01.2017, therefore, at the request of learned counsel for

the parties, heard finally.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

15.09.2017 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 41 of 2017

by the learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge (FTC),

District: Raipur, Chhattisgarh wherein, the appellant has been

convicted as mentioned below:

       Conviction           Sentence              In Default

     U/s 509 of IPC RI for 3 years and fine In     default    of
                    amount of Rs.500/-.     payment of fine
                                            amount additional RI
                                            for 6 months.

     U/s 354 of IPC RI for 5 years and fine In     default    of
                    amount of Rs.5,000/-. payment of fine
                                            amount additional RI
                                            for 6 months.

     U/s  8      of RI for 3 years and fine In     default    of
     POCSO      Act, amount of Rs.5,000/-. payment of fine
     2012                                   amount additional RI
                                            for 6 months.

     U/s 354 (d) (1) RI for 3 years and fine In     default    of
     (i) of IPC      amount of Rs.5,000/-. payment of fine
                                             amount additional RI
                                             for 6 months.

All the sentences have been directed to be run concurrently.

3. According to the case of prosecution, one year prior to

03.01.2017, when the prosecutrix (PW-10), aged about 17

years was returning to her home from tuition, at that time,

near Nakti Dharampura turning, the appellant stopped the

bicycle of the prosecutrix and touched her chest. The

prosecutrix being scared, rushed to her house and did not

narrated the incident to anyone. After 4 to 5 days of said

incident, again on same place, the appellant had again

committed the aforesaid act. The appellant also taken down

her cloths for committing intercourse with the prosecutrix.

However, somehow the prosecutrix redeemed herself and

rushed to her house. On the date of incident i.e. on

03.01.2017, when the prosecutrix was returning from tuition

along with her mother and aunt, at that time also the appellant

chased them and tried to outrage the modesty of the

prosecutrix. The matter was reported by the prosecutrix. After

completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the

police. To robe the Appellant in the crime-in-question

prosecution examined as many as total 16 witnesses. In the

statement of Appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C,

appellant 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

the Appellant is in jail since 05.01.2017 and has completed 4

years 10 months jail sentence out of 5 years jail sentence

imposed upon him by the concerned Trial Court, he has no

criminal antecedent, he is facing the lis since 2017 and he is a

young boy aged about 20 years. Therefore, it is prayed by

counsel that 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 has completed 4

years 10 months jail sentence out of 5 years jail sentence

imposed upon him by the Trial Court, he is facing the lis since

2017 and there is no criminal antecedent against him, 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 the aforementioned section is affirmed

and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

The fine sentence is affirmed.

9. It is reported that the Appellant is in jail, he be released

forthwith if not required in any other case.

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 Saurabh