Chattisgarh High Court
Mahendra Sai Painkra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 September, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 872 of 2021
• Mahendra Sai Painkra, S/o Late Shobhnath Sai Painkra Aged About 50 Years
Resident of Kersai, Bhandartoli, Police Station Tapkara, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Tapkara, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Order on Board
21/09/2021
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
30/07/2021 passed in Special Sessions Case No. 01/2020 by the
Special Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, (C.G.), whereby the appellant
has been convicted under Sections 363 and 342 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.
1000/- and R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default
stipulations. (Both sentences are directed to be run concurrently.)
2. According to case of the prosecution, on 03/01/2020, the mother of the
victim/prosecutrix lodged a report alleging therein that on 02/01/2020
at about 12:00 hours, the victim was playing near hand-pump, but later
on, the victim was not seen, therefore, the complainant searched for
the victim girl and she found that victim was inside the house of the
appellant. On being asked, the victim informed that the appellant had
taken her inside the house and removed her underwear. On the basis
of the said report, offence has been registered. Statement of injured as
well as other witnesses were recorded. After completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against appellant under
Sections 363, 342 and 376 (AB) read with Section 511 of the I.P.C.
and Section 6 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act. The trial Court
framed the charges. As many as 14 prosecution witnesses have been
examined. No defence witness has been examined. Statement of the
appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C has been recorded, wherein
he has pleaded innocence and false implication.
3. After trial, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as
mentioned in paragraph one 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 has
undergone about 1 ½ years out of total jail sentence of 2 years, he has
no criminal antecedent, therefore, he prays that the jail sentence
awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the
impugned judgment and submits that the sentence awarded by the
trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.
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 out of total jail sentence of 2 years, the
appellant has undergone about 1 ½ years, 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. 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
Prakash
