Chattisgarh High Court

Lalta Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 July, 2022

                                                                  NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       CRR No. 302 of 2010

      Lalta Prasad son of Shri Shankar Prasad, aged about 25 years,
       Occupation - Labourer, R/o Vill. Serangdaag, P.S. Kusmi,
       District Sarguja, CG.                         ---- Applicant
                              Versus
       State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate,
       Sarguja, CG.                         ---- Respondent


       For applicant           -    Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Adv.

       For respondent/State - Shri Sameer Oraon, GA




Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

01/07/2022

       This revision under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.PC has been

preferred against the judgment impugned dated 02.07.2010 passed

by Sessions Judge, Sarguja Ambikapur, in Criminal Appeal No.

64/2010 arising out of the judgment dated 25.3.2010 passed by

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur in Criminal Case No. 145/2008.

2.     Facts

of the case in brief are that prosecutrix (PW-4) had

come to the house of her sister Kalawati (PW-1) at Village

Serangdag. On 9.9.2008 at about 7 PM the prosecutrix with Kalavati

had gone to the vegetable shop of Sheetal to buy potato. When the

prosecutrix was standing outside the shop, the applicant came

there and flashed the torch in her eyes. When the prosecutrix

objected to the torch being flashed, the applicant got closer to her

and with an intention to outrage her modesty he caught hold of her

hair. He also pressed her breast and made her fall down too and in

the scuffle her bangles got broken and the scarf got torn. On cries

being raised by the prosecutrix, Kalavati (PW-1) came there and when she objected to the act of the accused, he beat her. Similarly,

the applicant chased Devraj (PW-3) also in order to beat him when

he tried to interevene in the matter. Thereupon, the incident was

reported to the police on 10.9.2008 on which Crime No. 73/2008

was registered against the applicant for the offence under Sections

354 and 323 IPC. After investigation charge sheet was filed against

the applicant under these sections followed by framing of charge

accordingly. Applicant however denied the charge and sought to be

tried.

3. Prosecution examined 08 witnesses in support of its case.

Statement of the accused/applicant under Section 313 CrPC has

also been recorded in which he pleaded his innocence and false

implication in the case.

4. Learned Magistrate by order dated 25.3.2010 convicted the

accused/applicant under Sections 354 and 323 IPC. Under Section

354 IPC the applicant was sentenced to undergo RI for one year

with fine of Rs. 400/-. U/s 323 IPC the applicant was sentenced to

undergo RI for three months with fine of Rs. 200/-. On appeal being

preferred by the present applicant, his conviction under both the

sections has been confirmed but the sentence under Section 354

IPC has been reduced to RI for six months from that of one year.

Under section 323 IPC, the sentence has been upheld in appeal by

the judgment impugned dated 2.7.2010. Hence this revision.

5. Counsel for the applicant submits that even if the entire case

of the prosecution is taken as it is, the ingredients of Sections 354

and 323 IPC are not attracted to the case in hand, and therefore

the conviction of the applicant is liable to be set aside. He submits

that looking to contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the

victim, her deposition cannot be made a basis for conviction of the applicant. He further submits that even the other witnesses have

also not supported the case of the prosecution. Lastly, it is

submitted that as the incident had taken place in the year 2008

and since then the applicant has been facing prosecution and that

even when he was released on bail by this Court suspending the

sentence imposed on him, he did not misuse the liberty, and in

these circumstances the sentence may be reduced to the period

already undergone.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports

the judgment impugned and submits that both the courts below

have recorded a categorical finding regarding the act attributed to

the applicant where he pulled prosecutrix by hair and also pressed

her breast with an intention to outrage her modesty, and in these

circumstances no leniency can be shown to the applicant.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record including the judgment impugned.

8. It is a settled legal position that while exercising revisional

jurisdiction, it is not necessary to go into the detailed analysis of

the evidence brought on record unless the finding recorded by the

Courts below are perverse or certain material contradictions and

omissions in the deposition of the witnesses have not been

considered by the courts below. Looking to the categorical

statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses including the

doctor (PW-6) who has given his report Ex. P-5, this Court is of the

opinion that both the Courts below have not committed any

illegality in recording a finding of conviction against the applicant

under Sections 354 and 323 IPC. It is hereby maintained.

9. The other submission of the counsel for the applicant is

regarding the sentence part of the judgment impugned. While dealing with the question of sentence in the matter of Mohammad

Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1977 SC 1926 it

has been observed by the Apex Court as under:

"Western jurisdiction and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education.' It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re- culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : 'If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.'"

10. As regards the case in hand, from the record it is apparent

that the incident had taken place in the year 2008; the applicant

has been facing long drawn prosecution since then, there is nothing

to show that he ever flouted the order of suspension of sentence

and grant of bail dated 7.7.2010 or in any manner he did anything

detrimental to the society. Looking to all these circumstances and

also taking support of the decision of the Apex court referred to

above, this court is of the considered opinion that no useful

purpose would be served in again sending the applicant to jail after

such a considerable long time. Accordingly, the setnence imposed

on the applicant on both counts is reduced to the period already undergone by him though very minimal. However, in lieu of

reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, the fine