Chattisgarh High Court
Kali Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 February, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:8474
Digitally
signed by
NAFR
SOURABH
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
2025.02.21
16:04:36
+0530
CRA No. 155 of 2007
• Kali Ram, S/o Hagru ram Marar, Aged about 60 years, R/o Village
Darigawan, Police Station-Sahaspur Lohara, District-Kabir Dham
(C.G.).
... Appellant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station-Sahaspur Lohara,
District-Kabir Dham (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
18/02/2025
1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2007 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Kabirdham, Kawardha (C.G.), in Special
Case No. 28/2006 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted
and sentenced the appellant as under :
Conviction Sentence
U/s 454 of IPC R.I. for 06 months.
U/s 354 of IPC R.I. for 06 months.
U/s 323 of IPC R.I. for 03 months.
(All the sentences were directed to run concurrently)
2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 08.03.2006, at about
02:00 PM,, when the prosecutrix went to the brick kiln in Bagiva,
Gram Darigawan to collect her belongings. Inside, she found the
accused-Kaliram sitting. He threatened to outrage her modesty and
kill her with a tangia (axe). With malicious intent, he grabbed her
right hand and pulled her inside the kiln. Thereafter the prosecutrix
managed to free herself and escape. Thereafter, the prosecutrix
informed her mother-in-law and husband about the incident.
Thereafter, the prosecutrix has lodged report against the present
appellant at Sahaspur Lohara Police Station and the offence was
registered against the present appellant under Section 454, 354, 323
and 506-B Part-II 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 10 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 02 witnesses and exhibited 02
documents in his defence
4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 22.02.2007, 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 2006, and thereby more than 18 years have rolled
by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about more than 78
years and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 10
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-6), Badan Bai (PW-07),
Ahilyabai (PW-08) 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 Sections 354, 454 and
323 of IPC.
9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had
taken place on 2006 about more than 18 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 10 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., 10 days instead of
suffering rigorous imprisonment for 06-06 months for the offence
punishable under Section 454 and 354 of IPC and rigorous
imprisonment for 03 months for the offence punishable under
Section 323 of IPC. However, a fine of Rs. 1000/- is imposed upon
the appellant for each of the offence i.e., under Sections 354, 454
and 323. The total fine amount of Rs.3000/- shall be payable by the
appellant, failing which the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I.
for 02 months.
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.
