Chattisgarh High Court
Rajesh Kumar @ Bhopali vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 February, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
2025:CGHC:7835
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
NAFR
PATEL Date:
2025.02.14
17:59:05
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 458 of 2008
• Rajesh Kumar @ Bhopali S/o Shatrughan Prasad Verma, Aged
about 28 years, Occupation Conductor, R/o Akhara, Police Station
Patan, Presently Bemetara, Brahaman Para, Ward No. 4 Bemetara,
P.S. Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.).
... Appellant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bemetara District-
Durg (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
13/02/2025
1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2008 passed by the
learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Durg C.G. in
Special Session Case No. 30/2006, whereby the learned Special
Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :
Conviction Sentence
U/s 354 of IPC. R.I. for 02 years.
U/s 323 of IPC Fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of
payment of fine amount additional
R.I. for 03 months.
2 The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix runs a shoe polish
shop behind the Sheetla Temple in Bemetara. On 23.02.2006, at
about 08 Pm while closing her shop and heading home, the
prosecutrix was suddenly assaulted by the accused, who grabbed
her arm and breast. Thereafter, he pushed the prosecutrix to the
ground injuring her right hand, leg and also tearing her blouse. The
prosecutrix screamed, and the accused fled from the place of
incident. Subsequently, prosecutrix reported the incident and filed a
complaint at the Police Station and offense was registered against
the present appellant U/s 323, 354 of IPC and U/s 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.
3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecutions have examined
as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 06 documents. The statement
of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in
which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and
pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.
4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 31.03.2008, learned trial Court has
acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section
3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However,
the appellant has been convicted for the offense as mentioned in
para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.
5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the
appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and
would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only.
According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the
year 2006, and thereby more than 18 years have rolled by since
then. At present, the appellant is aged more than 46 years and he has
already remained in jail for about 34 days, and no useful purpose
would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the
interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed
upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the
impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of
the counsel for appellant.
7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record including the impugned judgment.
8 Having gone through the material available on record and the
evidence of Dr. M.S. Devghar (PW-02), Prosecutrix (PW-5), Pawan
Nirmalkar (PW-6) establish the involvement of the appellant in the
crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the
findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the
appellant for offence punishable under Sections 354 and 323 of
IPC.
9 As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident
had taken place on 23.02.2006 about more than 18 years ago, he is
currently aged about more than 46 years and further considering the
facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact
that the appellant has no previous criminal antecedents and he has
already remained in jail for about 34 days, this court is of the
opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to
the period already undergone by him.
10 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to
send back the appellant to jail. Hence, the appellant is sentenced to
the period already undergone by him i.e., 34 days instead of
rigorous imprisonment for 02 years for the offence punishable
under Section 354 of IPC. However, the fine amount imposed upon
the appellant by the trial Court for the offence punishable U/s 323
of IPC shall remain intact.
11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
12 Appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. His bail
bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per
requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
13 Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment
be sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if
any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Sourabh P.
