Sushil Vishwas vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1575 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Sushil Vishwas vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 31 January, 2025

Author: Rajani Dubey

Bench: Rajani Dubey

                                         1




                                                          2025:CGHC:5854


                                                                           NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                              CRA No. 517 of 2005

Sushil Vishwas, S/o Shri Praful Vishwas, aged about 30 years, Occupation-
Agriculturist, R/o. Village- Kanchan Nagar, P.S.- Ramanujganj, District- Surguja
(C.G.)
                                                              --- Appellant
                                      versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through P. S.- Ramanujganj, District- Surguja (C.G.)


                                                           --- Respondent

_____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Advocate.

For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, GA _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 31.01.2025

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 10.06.2005 passed by

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Link Court, Ramanujganj (Surguja)

C.G. in S.T. No. 413/2000, wherein the said Court convicted the

appellant and sentenced him as under:-

Conviction Sentence Under Section 354 of R.I. for 2 years with payment of fine Rs. IPC 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 06 months.

2. The prosecution story in a nut shell is that, the marriage of the

deceased namely Dipika with one Narayan was solemnized prior to 9-

10 years. The allegation leveled against the present appellant is that on

the date of incident i.e. 30.08.2000, when she was alone, the appellant

came to the house of deceased and caught her hand and committed

sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the deceased disclosed this

incident to her husband namely- Narayan. Upon this, on 04.09.2000 at

evening, her husband convened a meeting, in which, the appellant, his

sister and brother-in-law were present and in that meeting, the

deceased only stated about her hand being held by the appellant. Upon

this, her husband slapped the deceased. Thereafter on the same night,

the deceased has committed suicide by consuming poison. Upon

investigation, the matter was registered at Police Station for offence

under Sections 376 & 306 of IPC against the appellant. After

completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was led

before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj.

However, the said case was committed to the Court of Additional

Sessions Judge, Link Court, Ramanujganj and the matter was

registered as Sessions Trial No. 413/2000 and the appellant was put to

trial for the offence punishable under Sections 376 & 306 of IPC.

3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has

examined as many as 17 witnesses to prove its case against the

appellant. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the incriminating charges

leveled against him and pleaded his innocence and false entailment in

the case.

4. Learned Trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties

and considering the material available on record, has convicted and

sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in opening para of this

judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court

has not properly evaluated the material available on record and wrongly

reached to a conclusion and convicted the appellant and as such the

impugned judgement deserves to be set aside. He further submits that

the appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated

by the Narayan (husband of deceased) due to subsisting enmity. There

are vital omissions and contradictions in the statements of all the

witnesses and prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt, but the learned Trial Court gave perverse findings

and thereby wrongly convicted the appellant in the said offence,

therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is

liable to be set aside.

Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the

conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 354 of

IPC, as imposed by the Trial Court is just and proper, the incident

took place in the year 2000, this appeal is pending since 2005, the

appellant is now aged more than 45 years and he is remained in

jail for more than 3 months and he did not misuse the liberty while

being on bail 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. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the

impugned judgment submits that learned Trial Court after minutely

appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted

and sentenced the appellant under Section 354 of IPC. So, there is no

scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being without any

merit is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record including the impugned judgment.

8. It is clear from the record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges

against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 376 & 306

of IPC and it is also clear that prosecution has examined as many as 17

witnesses to prove its case against the accused person/appellant.

Learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence acquitted the appellant of offence under

Sections 376 & 306 of IPC and thereby convicted the appellant for

offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC.

9. It is clear from record of learned Trial Court that deceased- Dipika

committed suicide. Ravinder Adhikari (PW-1) stated in his deposition

that the deceased- Dipika was married to Narayan Malik and on the

date of incident he went to house of Narayan Malik, at that time

deceased's husband- Narayan beaten the deceased, when he tried to

solve the dispute between them, her husband again beaten her and

then PW-1 returned his home. He got information after 1-2 hours that

the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison.

10. Gowri Adhikari (PW-2) has also stated in her deposition that on the date

of incident, deceased's husband- Narayan beaten the deceased and on

the same night, the deceased consumed poison.

11. Kali Dasi (PW-3) has stated in her deposition that the deceased told her

that the appellant committed forcibly sexaul intercourse with her, upon

this, her husband- Narayan beaten due to which she committed suicide

by consuming poison.

12. Shyamal Sandar (PW-4) has stated in his deposition that one Hari

Mandal told him that the deceased committed suicide, however, he has

no knowledge as to why the deceased committed suicide.

13. Narayan (PW-5), husband of the deceased stated in his deposition that

his wife/deceased namely Dipika told him that when she was alone, the

appellant came to the house and caught her hand and committed

sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, at about 11:00 pm, his

wife/deceased apprised him that she consumed poison and she told

him to look after her kids, when he asked to the deceased that why she

committed suicide, she answered that the appellant committed sexual

intercourse with her and she came to conclusion that there is no point

in living anymore.

14. Thus, learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence including the statements of all witnesses found

that husband and relatives of deceased stated that on the date of

incident accused/appellant tried to outrage her modesty and acquitted

the appellant under Sections 376 & 306 of IPC, but convicted the

appellant under Section 354 of IPC. Thus, learned Trial Court did not

commit any illegality or infirmity in its findings as regards conviction of

the appellant. So, the conviction of the appellant is hereby affirmed.

15. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took

place in the year 2000 and nearly 24 years have rolled by since then,

this appeal is pending since 2005. The appellant is now aged more

than 45 years; appellant has remained in jail for more than 03 months

and he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail and no useful

purpose would be served in again sending him to jail. Hence, taking

into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence

awarded under Section 354 of IPC by the Trial Court is reduced to the

period already undergone by him.

16. Ex consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the

conviction of the appellant under Section 354 of IPC, the sentence

imposed thereunder by the Trial Court is hereby reduced to the period

already undergone by him. However, the fine amount imposed by the

Trial Court shall remain intact. The impugned judgment stands modified

to the above extent.

17. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall

remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of

provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

18. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back

immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary

action.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey)

Digitally JUDGE signed by AMIT PATEL Date:

2025.02.03 14:24:13 AMIT PATEL +0530