Chattisgarh High Court
Hemant Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 February, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
2025:CGHC:8208
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
2025.02.18
NAFR
14:01:01
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 517 of 2011
• Hemant Sahu, Aged about 32 years, S/o Sewakram Sahu, R/o Pur-
gaon, Police Station Bilaigarh, District-Raipur (C.G.).
... Appellant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bilaigarh, District-
Raipur (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Jaiswal.
For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
17/02/2025
1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 23.06.2011 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.), in Special
Session Trial No. 68/2010 whereby the learned Special Judge has
convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :
Conviction Sentence
R.I. for 06 months with fine of Rs.
1000/-; in default of payment of fine
U/s 354 of IPC
amount additional R.I. for 03
months.
2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix resides
in Gram Bisanpur and studies at a school in Pawan. Her father had
given their house fan to Hemant Sah for repairing. When the
prosecutrix on 17.08.2010 at about 03:00 PM, while returning from
her school went to collect the fan, the present accused/appellant
took her to an empty house and attempted to outrage her modesty
and threatened to kill her. Thereafter, the prosecutrix informed her
family members about the incident. On the same day, the
prosecutrix has lodged report against the present appelant at Police
Station Bilaigarh and the offence was registered against the present
appellant under Section 354, 506-B of IPC and 3(1)(xi) of Schedule
Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the
prosecutrix has examined as many as 05 witnesses and exhibited 09
documents. The statement of the appellant was also 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 and has examined only 01 witness in his defence
4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 23.06.2011, learned trial Court has
acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections
506-B of IPC and 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, and convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as
mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.
5 Learned counsel appearing 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 2010, and thereby more than 14 years have rolled
by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about more than 46
years and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 11
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 the witnesses Prosecutrix (PW-1), Dileep Tandon (PW-
02), 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 conviction of the appellant
for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC.
9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had
taken place on 17.08.2010 about more than 14 years ago and further
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also
considering the fact that the appellant has already remained in jail
for about 11 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., 11 days instead of
suffering rigorous imprisonment for 06 months for the offence
punishable under Section 354 of IPC. However, the fine amount of
Rs. 1000/- imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court for the
offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC is hereby enhanced to
Rs. 3000/- which shall be payable, failing which the appellant shall
be liable to undergo R.I. 02 months. Fine, if any, deposited by the
appellant shall be adjusted in the fine imposed/enhanced by this
Court today.
11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated
above.
12 Appellant is on bail. 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 be sent back along with a copy of this
judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Sourabh P.
