Chattisgarh High Court
Rakesh @ Pitamber vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:2108
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 01 of 2011
• Rakesh @ Pitamber S/o Dasharath Mandavi, R/o Gram Sari, P.S.-
Sahaspur, Lohara, Distt.-Kabirdham, C.G.
... Appellant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Sahaspur Lohara, District-
Kabirdham (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
13/01/2025
1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 27.12.2010 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. in Sessions
Trial No. 13/2010, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has
convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :
Conviction Sentence
U/s 363 of IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year
and fine of Rs.2,000/-
Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year.
U/s 354 of IPC. Both the sentences shall run
concurrently.
2 The case of the prosecution is that when the prosecutrix was
returning to her home from the house of her neighbour Dalu after
watching T.V. at about 9.00 PM, the accused who was standing on
the road had kidnapped/abducted the prosecutrix. When the father
of the prosecutrix returned home, his wife informed him that their
daughter was missing thereafter he searched for her in the village
but couldn't find her. While searching, he headed towards
Raleekhar with Pandu Marar & Sushil Sahu and heard her daughter
screaming from Sadhwa Marar's field. Upon investigation, they
found and caught the accused Rakesh Mandavi on the spot when he
was escaping from the place of incident, thereafter, the matter was
reported to the Police Station and First Information Report was filed
against the appellant. After completion of investigation, charge
sheet has been filed under Section 363 and 376/511 of IPC.
3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as
many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. However, the
appellant has examined only 01 witness in his defense. 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.
4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 27.12.2010, learned trial Court has
acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 376/511 of
IPC. However, the appellant has been convicted for the offence 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 2010, and thereby more than 13 years have rolled by since
then. At present, the appellant is aged about 38 years and the
appellant has already remained in jail for about 26 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, Father of the prosecutrix (PW-1), Gokran
(PW-2), Prosecutrix (PW-5), Sushil (PW-8), P.S. Maravi (PW-9),
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 363 and 354 of IPC.
9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had
taken place on 09.03.2010 about 14 years ago and further
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also
considering that the appellant has already remained in jail for about
26 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 instead of rigorous
imprisonment for 01-01 year for the offences punishable under
Sections 363 and 354 of IPC. However, the fine amount imposed
upon the appellant by the trial Court 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 Court below 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.
