Chattisgarh High Court
Jailal Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 February, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.02.22
11:24:11 +0530
2025:CGHC:8723
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 179 of 2008
Jailal S/o Prahalad, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Dhawalpur, P.S.
Mainpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mainpur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
19.02.2025
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374
(2) of CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 16.01.2008 passed by learned Additional
Session Judge, Gariyaband, District Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial
No. 44/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence
under Section 376/511 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 1 month.
2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that, on 10.07.2007, the
prosecutrix along with her husband had gone to work in their field
near Gyapan Nala. At around 4:00 p.m., the prosecutrix went to
Gyapan Nala to take bath. When she was washing her Saree
wearing only petticoat, the appellant came there, caught hold of
her, threw her on the side of the Nala, lifted both her legs and tried
to commit sexual intercourse with her. When she screamed, the
appellant put his fingers in her mouth. Hearing her screams, when
Tulesh, Vimala Bai and her husband came there, the appellant fled
from the spot. The matter was reported by the prosecutrix at Police
Station, Mainpur, based on which FIR was lodged against the
appellant and after completion of investigation, appellant was
charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence.
3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence,
prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its
case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under
Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances
appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the
prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, 1
witness has been examined by the appellant in his defence.
4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as
mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against
which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned
judgment.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to
press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on
sentence part. He submits that the appellant is now more than 42
years of age and has family responsibilities and he has already
remained in jail for about 1 year, 8 months and 4 days. The incident
took place in the year 2007 and since then the appellant is facing
the lis. This appeal is pending since 2008. Hence, considering all
these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the
period already undergone by him in the interest of justice.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the
impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on
behalf of the Appellant.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record including the impugned judgment.
8. Having gone through the material available on record and the
evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-8), her husband Mohan Yadav
(PW-1) and also the statements of the witness Vimla Bai (PW-2)
and Tulesh Kumar Patel (PW-3) who came to the spot on hearing
the screams of the prosecutrix, establish the involvement of the
Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any
illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as
regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under
Section 376/511 of IPC which is based on evidence available on
record and it is hereby affirmed.
9. As regards the sentence part, the incident had taken place in the
year 2007 i.e. about 18 years ago. At that time, the appellant was
aged about 25 years and now he must be more than 42 years
having family responsibility. The appellant is facing the lis since
2007 and he has already remained in jail for about 1 year, 8 months
& 4 days. Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be
appropriate to send back the appellant to jail and the ends of justice
would serve if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by
him.
10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under
Section 376/511 of IPC is maintained and the sentence of RI for 5
years is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year,
8 months & 4 days. However, the fine amount and its default
stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact.
11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
12. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case.
However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six
months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the
CrPC.
13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be
transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information
and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai
