Chattisgarh High Court
Laximi Narayan Yadav @ Lala vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 March, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
2025:CGHC:10962
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL
NAFR
Date:
2025.03.07
10:12:23
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 109 of 2007
• Laximi Narayan Yadav @ Lala, S/o Bhanaphar Yadav, Aged
about 25 years, Student, R/o Village Akaltari, P.S.
Akaltara, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).
... Appellant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station-Akaltara,
District: Janjgir Champa (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate.
For State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
05/03/2025
1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 15.01.2007 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in
S.T. No. 27/2006 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has
convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :
Conviction Sentence
U/s 456 of IPC R.I. for 02 year with fine of Rs.
1000/-; in default of payment
of fine amount additional R.I. for
03 month.
2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.05.2006
in the night, while prosecutrix was sleeping in her room
and her inmates were sleeping in the adjacent room.
Around midnight at 12:00 Am, neighbour Lakshminarayan
Yadav entered in the house and room of the prosecutrix
and grabbed her arms and legs. When the prosecutrix woke
up, she resisted and shouted for help. On being resisted
and shouted by the prosecutrix, the accused fled away.
Thereafter, the prosecutrix told her husband and
neighbours about the said incident and filed a report in
Akaltara Police Station. On the basis of report lodged by the
prosecutrix, offence was registered against the present
appellant/accused U/s 354, 456 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities), Act.
3 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the
offence, the prosecutrix has examined as many as 08
witnesses and exhibited 07 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 and has examined 01 witness and exhibited 02
documents in his defence.
4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 15.01.2007, learned
trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 354 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe 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 18 years have rolled by since
then. At present, the appellant is aged about more than 43
years and the appellant has already remained in jail for
about 03 months, 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, Prosecutrix (PW-1), Fekuram
(PW-2), Kartik Ram (PW-3) and Aghan Kumar (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
456 of IPC.
9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the
incident had taken place on 29.05.2006 about more than
18 years ago and further considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the fact
that there is no previous criminal record of the appellant
and he has already remained in jail for about 03 months,
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 i.e., about 03 months instead of suffering rigorous
imprisonment for 02 years for the offence punishable under
Section 456 of IPC. However, the fine amount of Rs. 1000/-
imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court for the
offence punishable under Section 456 of IPC shall remain
intact.
11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent
indicated above.
12 Appellant is on bail. 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 trial Court 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.
