Chattisgarh High Court
Sanjay Bachad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 March, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.03.06
10:50:08 +0530
2025:CGHC:10430
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 223 of 2007
Sanjay Bachad S/o Ranjeet Bachad, Aged About 26 Years, Caste Namo
Sudra, R/o P.V. 116, P.S. Pakhanjore, District Kanker North Bastar,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through D. M. Kanker, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer
For Complainant : Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate, on behalf of
Mr. Wasim Miyan, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
03.03.2025
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 22.01.2007 passed by learned 2nd
Additional Session Judge (FTC), North Bastar Kanker, in Sessions
Trial No. 124/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted and
sentenced in the following manner:
2
Conviction Sentence
u/s 363 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine
of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine, 1
year additional R.I.
u/s 366 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine
of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine, 1
year additional R.I.
u/s 376 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine
of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine, 1
year additional R.I.
2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that, on 14.07.2005, the
appellant herein is alleged to have kidnapped the minor victim (PW-
2) aged about 13 years from the lawful guardianship of her parents
and committed sexual intercourse with her. It is also the case of
prosecution that on 14.07.2005, the father of the victim lodged a
report at Police Station Pakhanjur regarding his 13 year old
daughter not returning from school. Based on which a missing
report was registered and investigation was conducted. During
investigation it was found that the appellant induced the victim and
took her to Alapalli Malchura and committed sexual intercourse with
her. The appellant was arrested on 07.09.2005. The victim was
subjected to medical examination. Statements of the witnesses
were recorded. 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 10 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
3
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 complainant and the appellant
have jointly filed I.A. No.01/18 to compound the offence and reduce
the sentence to the period already undergone on the basis of
compromise. He submits that the appellant and the victim married
on 25.01.2010 and they have two children out of the wedlock.
Furthermore, out of maximum sentence of 7 years, the appellant
has already remained in jail for about 1 year, 10 months. The
incident occurred in the year 2005 and since then the appellant is
facing the lis. Therefore, considering all these facts, the jail
sentence of the Appellant may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the
conclusion given by the trial court regarding conviction and
sentence of the appellant is based on sufficient and reliable
evidence, which does not require any interference. Therefore, the
contention made by the counsel for the appellant is not acceptable,
hence, the appeal may be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record including the impugned judgment.
8. Having gone through the material available on record and the
evidence of the victim (PW-2), her father (PW-3) and also the
statement of Dr. Smt. Nisha Nawratan (PW-7) who medically
examined the victim, 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
4
conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections
363, 366 & 376 of IPC, which is based on evidence available on
record and it is hereby affirmed/maintained.
9. The victim and the appellant have jointly filed I.A. No.01/18 for
compounding the offence along with their affidavits. As per I.A. No.
01, the prosecutrix has settled her dispute with the appellant and
got married to appellant. Out of the said marriage they have two
children and they are living together peacefully. Therefore, the
prosecutrix wants to close the case against the appellant.
10. Though the appellant and the victim entered into a compromise, the
offences are not compoundable and therefore, I.A. No.01 is
dismissed.
11. As regards sentence part, the Supreme Court in the matter of
Baldev Singh and others v. State of Punjab (2011) 13 Supreme
Court Cases 705 in paragraphs 4 & 5 held as under:-
“4. Section 376 is a non-compoundable offence.
However, the fact that the incident is an old one, is
a circumstance for invoking the proviso to Section
376(2)(g) and awarding a sentence of less than 10
years, which is ordinarily the minimum sentence
under that provision, as we think that there are
adequate and special reasons for doing so.
5. On the facts of the case, considering that the
incident happened in the year 1997 and that the
parties have themselves entered into a
compromise, we uphold the conviction of the
appellant but we reduce the sentence to the period
of sentence already undergone by in view of the
proviso to Section 376 (2)(g) which for adequate
and special reasons permits imposition of a lesser
sentence………”
5
12. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Baldev Singh (supra) and taking into consideration the fact that
the parties have themselves entered into compromise, the victim
has married to the appellant and they have two children from the
said marriage and also considering the fact that the Appellant is
facing lis since 2005, i.e. about 20 years and he has already
remained in jail for about 1 year 10 months, the conviction of the
appellant is upheld but the jail sentence awarded to the Appellant
for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of IPC is
reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine
amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall
remain intact.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated
herein above.
14. 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.
15. 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
[ad_1]
Source link