Chattisgarh High Court
Shivnarayan @ Shivkumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 July, 2025
1
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
PRAKASH
PRAKASH KUMAR
KUMAR Date: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2025.07.23
16:50:31
+0530
CRR No. 749 of 2016
Shivnarayan @ Shivkumar Sahu S/o Kanhaiya Lal Sahu, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Village - Khursul, Police Station - Arjunda, Thana - Nevai, Tahsil
and District - Durg, Chhattisgarh,
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Durg, Chhattisgarh,
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
23/07/2025
1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal
Procedure against the judgment dated 18.07.2016 passed by the 3 rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal
No.0000277/2014 arising out of the judgment dated 18.08.2014 passed
by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case
No.201/2011. The learned Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by
upholding the conviction of the applicant under Sections 457 and 354
of the IPC and modifying the period of sentence from R.I. of 2 years to
S.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 457 IPC and from R.I.
of 1 year to S.I. of 6 months with fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment
2
of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months each. Both the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 28.05.2011 the complainant
(PW-01) lodged an FIR (Ex.P-1) before the police station – Newai,
District Durg, stating that at about 11:00 PM, the applicant entered into
her house with bad intention, demanded to establish physical
relationship with her and also tried to outrage her modesty. Thereafter,
when the complainant raised alarm, the applicant ran away from the
place of incident and she went into the house of her neighbour Chunnu
Ram (PW-03) and narrated him about the incident. On the basis of the
above background, offence was registered against the applicant and
statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the
Court of JMFC, Durg, against the applicant, who abjured the charge
and pleaded non-guilty.
4. Learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in
paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by
the applicant in Criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide
judgment dated 18.07.2016, partly allowed the appeal upholding the
conviction of the applicant and reducing the period of sentence as
mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not
want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the
sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further
3
submits that the applicant has remained in jail for about 29 days i.e.
from 30.05.2011 to 02.06.2011 and from 18.07.2016 to 12.08.2016, he
is facing the lis since 28.05.2011 i.e. for more than 14 years. He further
submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and the fine
amount has already been deposited before the concerned trial Court.
Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced
to the period already undergone by him.
6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel supports the impugned
judgment passed by the learned JMFC and Appellate Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of
complainant (PW-01), Chunnu Lal Sahu (PW-03), Nirbai (PW-04)
supported with the other evidence available on record, this Court is of
the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court as well
as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on
record is correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the
applicant.
9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that
applicant has remained in jail for about 29 days, he is facing the lis
since 2011 i.e. for more than 14 years, he has no criminal antecedent
and further, the fine amount has already been deposited, I am of the
view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicant
back to jail again, and ends of justice would be met if, while upholding
4
the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to
him is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 29 days.
Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant
under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to
the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is hereby
affirmed.
11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond
shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of
provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Prakash
[ad_1]
Source link