Jhuna @ Sujit Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 2284 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Jhuna @ Sujit Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 March, 2025

                                        1

                            Digitally signed
                            by BHOLA
                            NATH KHATAI
                            Date:
                            2025.03.07
                            10:33:52 +0530




                                                  2025:CGHC:10963


                                                                 NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                         CRA No. 324 of 2008

Jhuna @ Sujit Kumar Aged About 22 Years S/o Rambharos Gupta, R/o
Dhobhar, Police Station Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur C.G.
                                                          ... Appellant
                                   versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur
C.G.
                                                        ... Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

05.03.2025

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.03.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. P-43/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 376/511 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 2 months.

2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that, on 26.02.2007, when the victim went to the house of appellant to give him Namkin Mixture, the appellant closed the door, made her lie on the bed and attempted to commit sexual intercourse with her. At that time, brother of the victim came to the house of appellant and called from outside, then the appellant left her and ran away. The victim informed her parents about the incident and thereafter the matter was reported at Police Station, Pendra, based on which FIR was registered against the appellant and after completion of investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence.

3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness has been examined by the appellant in his defence.

4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the appellant is now more than 40 years of age and has family responsibilities and he has already remained in jail for about 2 years 9 months. The incident took place in the year 2007 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. This appeal is pending since 2008. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already

undergone by him in the interest of justice.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment.

8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of the victim (PW-6), her brother (PW-2) and father (PW-7), establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 376/511 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed.

9. As regards the sentence part, the incident had taken place in the year 2007 i.e. about 18 years ago. At that time, the appellant was aged about 22 years and now he must be more than 40 years having family responsibility. The appellant is facing the lis since 2007 and he has already remained in jail for about 2 year, 9 months. Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to send back the appellant to jail and the ends of justice would serve if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 376/511 of IPC is maintained and the sentence of RI for 5 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 2 years 9 months. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact.

11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

12. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case.

However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC.

13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

Khatai