Chattisgarh High Court
Santosh Kumar Roy vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:2560
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
PATEL
SOURABH
PATEL
Date:
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2025.01.29
14:06:53
CRA No. 592 of 2007
+0530
• Santosh Kumar Roy, S/o Late Shri Nagendra Roy, Aged About 29
years, Profession-Student, R/o D.N.K. Colony, Kondagaon, District-
Bastar (C.G.).
... Appellant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Thana Ajak, Jagdalpur, District-
Bastar (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Alok Dewangan, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
15/01/2025
1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 18.05.2007 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Bastar Jagdalpur (C.G.), in S.T. No.
260/2006 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and
sentenced the appellant as under :
Conviction Sentence
U/s 354 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year
with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default
of fine amount further R.I. for 03
months.
2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.06.2006, at about
09:00 PM in front of Mona Bengalis house on public passage, the
present appellant intended to outrage the modesty of victim
knowing that she belongs to Schedule Caste. On the basis of above,
the offence has been registered against the present appellant under
Section 3(1) (xi) of the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 354 of IPC.
3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as
many as 05 witnesses and exhibited 05 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.
4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 18.05.2007, learned Judge has acquitted
the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of
the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (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 15 years have rolled
by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about 46 years and
no useful purpose would be served to send the appellant in jail,
therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the
sentence imposed upon the appellant may be set aside by enhancing
the fine amount imposed upon him and the case may be disposed of.
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 Victim (PW-2), Mahitosh Sangar (PW-3),
Mohan Nayak (PW-4), 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 02.06.2006 about 18 years ago and further
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of
the opinion that in the interest of justice it would be appropriate if
the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellant is set
aside.
10 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to
send the appellant to jail. Hence,While upholding the conviction of
the appellant, the sentence of imprisonment awarded against him is
set aside. However, the fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- imposed upon
the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC is
hereby enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- shall be payable within a period of
60 days from today, failing which, the appellant shall be liable
to undergo R.I. for 3 months. The fine, if any, deposited by the
appellant shall be adjusted in the fine imposed/enhanced by this
Court.
11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated
above.
12 Appellant is on bail. Their 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.
