Chattisgarh High Court
Harish @ Praveen vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 March, 2025
1
Digitally 2025:CGHC:10965
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
PATEL
PATEL
Date:
2025.03.06
NAFR
14:10:35
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 863 of 2008
• Harish @ Praveen S/o Gajraj Saini, Aged about 27 years,
R/o Kududnad, P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur
(C.G.).
... Appellant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer,
Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District-
Bilaspur (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate.
For State/Respondent : Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A.
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 29.08.2008 passed
by the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special
Criminal Case No. 27/2008 whereby the learned Special
Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as
under :
Conviction Sentence
R.I. for 06 months with fine of
Rs. 1000/-; in default of
U/s 354 of IPC
payment of fine amount
additional R.I. for 01 month.
2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.05.2008,
the victim Anita Netam along with her sister Poonam Netam
and brother Rajesh was returning from a computer center
at warehouse chowk. As they reached near transformer at
Kududand, the accused Harish @ Praveen started
harassing the victim with indecent language and pulled her
dupatta. Earlier, the accused had threatened Anita, saying
he would harm her if she married someone else. Anita
informed her mother Saraswati Netam about the said
incident on the same day and filed an FIR at the Civil Lines
Police Station. After completing the investigation, a charge-
sheet was filed and offence was registered against the
present appellant/accused U/s 354, 506 of IPC and 3(1)(xi)
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 06
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 and has examined 01 witness.
4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2008, learned
trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 506 of IPC and 3(1)(xi) 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
2008, and thereby more than 16 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 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, Victim (PW-1), Poonam (PW-
2), Rajesh (PW-3), Saraswati (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 13.05.2008 about more than
16 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 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 i.e., about 03 days instead of suffering rigorous
imprisonment for 06 months for the offence punishable
under Section 354 of IPC. However, the fine amount of Rs.
1000/- with default stipulation imposed upon the appellant
by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section
354 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.
