Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sarojani Karsa vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
NAFR
PRAKASH
PRAKASH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2025.08.01
17:45:36
+0530
Criminal Revision No. 1063 of 2016
Smt. Sarojani Karsa W/o Shri Purushottam Karsa, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Village- Sukli, Thana- Girodhpuri, District Balouda Bazar, At Present R/o Lambitoli,
Village - Kunkuri, Thana and Tahsil - Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
01/08/2025
1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal
Procedure against the judgment dated 09.11.2016 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge (FTC), Jashpur, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.56/2015
whereby the learned Appellate Court has affirmed the order of conviction and
sentence dated 28.09.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jashpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.109/2015, convicting
the applicant under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 467 of Indian Penal Code
and sentencing her to undergo R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default
of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month under each offence with a
direction to run the sentences concurrently.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, in the year 2009 an advertisement
was issued for the selection of post of Siksha Karmi Class - II in District
Panchayat, Jashpur and thereafter, the applicant applied for the said post
and submitted her all requisite documents along with B.Ed. Marksheet and
later on she was selected for the said post. After some time, it was alleged
that the B.Ed. mark-sheet which was submitted by her (applicant) was a
forged one. On the basis of the above background, an FIR was registered
against the applicant and, thereafter, statements of the witnesses were
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of
CJM, Jashpur, against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded
non-guilty.
4. Learned Court of CJM, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence,
convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this
judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in Criminal
appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 09.11.2016
dismissed the same. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want
to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the sentence
part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the
applicant has remained in jail for 16 days i.e. from 16.10.2012 to 19.10.2012
and from 09.11.2016 to 21.11.2016, she is facing the lis since 2012 i.e. for
more than 13 years. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal
antecedent. Furthermore, the applicant is a married woman and has a child
and that, she has not joined the services and has not taken any monetary
benefit from it. This apart, the fine amount has already been deposited before
the concerned trial Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the
applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by her. Reliance
has been placed in the matter of Parmanand Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
passed in CRR No.813 of 2014.
6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment
passed by the learned CJM and Appellate Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused
the record.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of
complainant Dinesh Kumar Sinha (PW-01), Shyam Dhawde (PW-02), Viraj
Kispotta (PW-03) supported with the other evidence available on record, this
Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court as
well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record
is correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant.
9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that applicant has
remained in jail for about 16 days, she is facing the lis since 2012 i.e. for
more than 13 years, she has no criminal antecedent and further, the fine
amount has already been deposited, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose
would be served to send the applicant back to jail again, and ends of justice
would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the
jail sentence awarded to her is reduced to the period already undergone by
her i.e. 16 days. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant
under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and she is sentenced to the
period already undergone by her. The fine sentence is hereby affirmed.
11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, her bail bond shall
remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of
Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Prakash
