Chattisgarh High Court
P.Shiv Prasad Rao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 February, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.02.27
10:57:18 +0530
2025:CGHC:9445
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 391 of 2007
P. Shiv Prasad Rao S/o P. J. Rao, aged about 48 years, by caste
Christian, R/o Devrikhurd, Bilaspur, Police Station Torwa, District
Bilaspur (CG), At present residing at Mission Road, Champa, Police
Station - Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, (CG)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-
Champa (CG)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer
For Complainant : Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
24.02.2025
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 14.05.2007 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 49/2006
whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the
following manner:
Conviction Sentence
u/s 452 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and
fine of Rs.1,000, in default of payment
of fine, 3 months additional
imprisonment.
u/s 354 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months
2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that, on 02.03.2006 at about
10:50 a.m, the victim was at her house. At that time, the appellant
who is her neighbour came to her house, caught hold of her, took
her in his lap and started pressing her breast. She somehow freed
herself and ran away screaming and told the incident to her sister
Chandrakala (PW-6) who lived near the house. She then came to
her house along with her sister Chandrakala but by that time the
appellant had left the house. At that time, her mother had gone for
training and out of fear she did not tell the incident to her father.
When her mother returned on 08.03.2006, she told her about the
incident and then the matter was reported to the Police on
09.03.2006, based on which FIR was registered 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 7 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, 2 witnesses have 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 relations between the parties have
become cordial. The victim has got married and is living with her
in-laws. The complainant has filed no objection application. The
incident took place in the year 2006 and since then the appellant is
facing the lis. The appellant is now aged about 66 years and he
has remained in custody for 1 day. Therefore, 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, opposing the
arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the
impugned judgment is just and proper and does not require any
interference.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant does not have any
objection to the prayer may by learned counsel for the appellant.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record including the impugned judgment.
9. Having gone through the material available on record and the
statements of the victim (PW-1), her mother (PW-2), father (PW-3),
and the statement of Chandrakala (PW-6) to whom the victim had
first narrated about the incident, 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 Sections 452 & 354 of IPC which is based on evidence
available on record and it is hereby affirmed.
10. As regards sentence, the mother of the victim Makku Murmu (PW-
2) is present in person before this Court with advocate Raj Kumar
Sahu who has filed an application for no objection (I.A.
No.01/2025) which is supported with the affidavit of the mother of
the victim. Her Aadhar card is also attached with the application. It
is mentioned in the said application that the relations between the
parties have become cordial, the victim has got married, after
marriage she is living in her matrimonial house and now she is 8
months pregnant, hence she could not come to the Court.
11. It is also clear from the record that the incident had taken place in
the year 2006 i.e. about 19 years ago. At that time, the appellant
was aged about 48 years and now he must be more than 66 years
of age. The appellant is facing the lis since 2006 and he has
remained in custody for 1 day.
12. 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.
13. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under
Sections 452 and 354 of IPC is maintained, however, the jail
sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already
undergone by him. The fine amount and its default stipulation
imposed by the trial Court under Section 452 of IPC shall remain
intact. In addition, the appellant is imposed with fine of Rs.1,000
under Section 354 of IPC and in default of payment of fine amount,
the appellant shall be liable to undergo imprisonment for 3 months.
The fine amount, if any already paid, the same will be adjusted.
14. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove. Consequently, I.A. No.01/2025 stands disposed of.
15. 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.
16. 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
