1N THE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION N0: 56’ M, /2002 PETITIONFR/ApPLICANT IN fAIL $4M 29 0-7 m. DUBRAJ, S/o Ratan Gada, Age—30yrs,R/0 Village—Bagdwari, P.S. Saraipali,Distt.- Mahasamund(C.G.) VERSUS State Qf Chhattiggarh. Through PIS. Saraipali, Distt.-Mahasamund I £ ‘ CRIMINAL REVISION U/Sec. 397/401 R/W Sec. 482 CODE OF ‘- __ , CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ) M @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’3LE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAK’ER CKREVJO. 384] 2002 ‘: 4 Shri J:A. Inham', counsel for the applicant. Smt. Smita Ghai, P.L for tha State. s REVISION UNDER. SECTIOII 397(401 OF THE CODE OI CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDER (97973011) Pmsent revision an'ses out of the judgment and order dated 1 29.07.02 passed by the Fixst Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Cr. A. No. 26412901 aEnm’ng the ardegf dated 6. 12.2001 passed b}; the leamed Magistxate in Cr. Case N0. 1587/97 cbnvicu'ng the accused/applicant under section 354 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for six months. '2. Facts of the case in brief axe that on 3.5.97 FIR (Ex.P/ 1) was lodged by the prosecutrix (P.W.-1) a married lady aged about 22 years alleging that on that day at about.6.00 a.m. when she was {cunning after attending the call of nature, on the way accused/applicant apprehended her and pmssed her bteast. Based on this information FIR under Section 354 IPC was registemd against the accused/applicant. After inveatigation challan was filed on 7.5.97 under Section 354 IPC. 3. In oxder to establish the guilt of the accused, the plosecun‘on has examined 05 Witnesses. Statement of the accused] applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled again st him and pleaded his innocence and false APPLICANT Dubxaj h ‘ NJ maronnEN'r ‘ State of Chhauisgarh @ mplication in th case. This apart one defence Witness as; alSo been i e h cxamjned. ‘ e ing es g d 4. Aftr hear counsel for the parti, by the judment an order dated 6.12.01 leaned Magistrate in Cr. Cas No. 1587/97 has onted the accused/appellant for the affence under ection 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo l for months however, aypeal the order f the strate has been Hence ts re ‘ Contenn of Sh Loha, counsel for the appellant that he s not pxesg t 1en so far as lates to the conn part V ‘ ‘ of the unpugned Judgment and would oonhne h argument to the t sentence part thereof only Accordmg to ham the mmdent 1s sa1d to have taken place 1n the year 1997 Le about 14 years back that the apphcant has already remamed m Ja1l for about 30 days, he is now ‘ aged about 44 years, 1tW111 be too harsh to agam send hun to Jall and 1t would be m the mterest ofJusnce If the sentence mposed on h1m 1s zeduced to the permd already undergone by hnn. To th1s counsel for the State has no serious objection. _§\ 6. Considering the facts and éircumstances of the c‘ase, the convxctmn part of the impugned Judgnent is mainmined However lookmg to the fact that the meldent had taken place 1n the year 1997 1 e 14 yeaxs back the fact that the apphcant has already remamed m 1a11 for about 30 days, the rev1sxon 1s partly allowed Convmnon part of the nnpugned Judgment 1s mamtamed However, lookmg to the pecuhar facts and cncnmstances of the case, the sentence 1s reduced to the penod already undergone by hJm but 1n hen thereof the dne of Rs 3 000 1s 1mposed upon the apphcant wh1ch shall be depos1ted by hnn before the 11-131 Court Wlthm a penod of Six months hum the date of rece1pt of copy of th1s order and which shall he dlsbursed to the complamant If thJs hue amount of Rs 3 000 1s not deyosned before the trial court W1thm a penod of 51x months the apphcant has to undergo RI for two months. Revision thus partly succeedsh§fz Sdl_ J ’ Pritinker Diwaker Judge k‘‘. ‘ r e écvm S 1t R Six m o Magl mammmed m wsmn S no n m 1s ‘ 1 sm h1s v1s1o 1t re vmuo as i