StiS.fifasSisa.iiQMsW..-;:^. s <BB FT !w y<i P.cas; jJ'!-i-a!i~~^P' e.j, CQr! ?+H 'w u.^ ag'E' b (D &'fl » ri-'^O H.^ g^ .' .'"• fe) KS-g.Si. '(B f1 " Pl-' p.g Ml'<! H- w' P'V! .?? s' S-i Vs.~.H VI »<<! §c •^ g' "^is 'S»~<6 M te "\1 &• ^s"ao B i<i-<- HIGHCOURTOFCMMATTISSARHATBIl.ASPLni Cr Aoolial No.855/1969 Single Bench: Hon'tile Shri'Dilfp Raosaheb &eshmukk, J. Monjulal Versus Storte ofChhatt-isgarh Shri S.C. Verma, leamed counsel for -riie appellcint. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha. Sovt.Advocate for the State/Fespondent. ORALJUD6MENT (Deliveredon 17thAugust, 2006) This oppeal is directed ogainst the judgment dorfed 25.8.t989 deliveredbyShri Ramkrishna Behar, leamed 4+ Addl. Sessions Judge, C>istt.Raipur (C6) in Sessions Trial No. 229/1987 whereby the oppellant was conyicted underSection 354 IPC for using criininal force on Vimla Bai to outrage her modest/ on 7.8.1987 at about 8.15 a.m. ancl was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 yecu'. The appellant vms convicted under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causinghurt to i-1iro Bai by ineans of ashdr'p instrument i.e. knife and was sentenced toundergo R.I. for 1 yedr, The appellont was further convicted undfer Section 324 ofIPCforvoluntarilYCflusing hiirt to.Vimla Bai on her stomaeh by means of a knife and wjns sentenced-h; i.indergo R.I.for 3'years. 2. Brief •fgcts are that on 7.8.1987, at about 6 a.iB. Viiwla Bai PW-1 hadl gone to the field to pluck yegetables with her N:i YOGENDRA SINGH KANWAR Digitally signed by YOGENDRA SINGH KANWAR Date: 2025.02.20 16:14:59 +0530 'v Aunt Hiro Bai PW-2. The appellant came there ond asked the way to the village. On beinfl told, the oppellimt left the place but returned againat about 8.15 a.m. dnd held the hondof Vimla Sai intending to outrcge her modesty. Vimla Bai shouted. The appeliant stabbedher in the stomach on the left side with a knife. Vimla Bai fellunconscious. t-learing h®rshouts, Hiro Bai came to the spot and held the knife of the appellant due to which she also sustaihed two abrasionsover backof right hand below the base of thumb dnd another linear abrasion over anterolateral aspect of right thumb. 3. F.I.R. was lodged by Vimla Bai atp.S.Rajim vide Ex.P-1 on 7.8.1987 at 11.30 a.nn. On medical examination. &r. Chawla PW-8 found <m incised wound over upper part of anterior abdomirial wall leftside horizontally situated 5 cm-above dnd4 cmtateral to umbilicus size 1 ? x t cm on Vimla Bai. br. Chawla PW-8 opined that the injury could have been caused by a hard ond sharpinstrument. Upon x-ray no pneOmoperitonilis was found in the abdomen of Vimla Bai. Dr. Chawld PW-8 examined l-1iro Bai on the same. day ond found the abrosions as mentioned ttforesaid. After completion of investigation, the appellant was prosecuted. 4. The appellant abjured the guilt, pleaded innocence ond / • . ' " ' . •- • . ; led no evidence. in defence. The prosecution examined o.s mahy as 8 witnesses. Relying 'tTpon the evictence ted by the prosecutidn, the learned trial Judge convicted and serttenced the <q)pe!!cnt us aforesaid in para 1. ^ (^<i 5. Learned counsel for the oppel!<mt has at the very outset, stated that he does not. assail the impugnsd judgment on merlts, but, would argue oniy on the question of sentence. 6. In view of th®obove submission, tbis appeal was heard only on fne question of sentence. Shri 5.C. Verma, l&amed counsel foi* the appellant submitted that the appel!cmt after his arrest was in jail s.ince 8.8.1987 to 13.10.1987 andhad thus undergone incdirceration for a period of 2 months 5 days. It was stated that the incident took place in th®year" 1987 and the appetlant hadsuffered !ot of mentai agony till now. Lastly, it was urged that the injury sustained by Vim!a Bai was a simple injury ond the ihjyry sustained by Hiro Bai was merely a superficiat injurycnd wasnot caused due to onyassaultmade On her by the appellan't. The appellant was a fit'st offender and in viaw of the aforesaid circumstances.interestofjustice would be served if the sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge was suitably reduced to penod already undergone. 7. Qn -tfie othep hond. Shri A.S..Kachhwa}ia. learhed Govt. Advocate argusd in sypport of 1'i'ie impugried judgment and con-tended that the sentence awarded by the learned tr-ial Judgedid not ca!l for ony inter'fepence. 8. Having-'heardith®rivd'subrnissiQns. I have perused the record ofSeSsiohs Tria! No^ 229/1987. There. is overwhelmjng evidenee on record to show that the ttppe.llant had gone to the Ifieid ond with intent to outrage modesty of Vimla Bai, 1'igd held lier hand. Thereaftep, upon her shouts, t'he oppellantassaulted .^ v <(«-- her with a knife on her stomach. The testimony of Vimla Bai P'A'-l is corroborated by Hir-o Bai PW-2 as o.!so by the medical .f . •••'.•' ' ": ' ' • - . • • . • ' • evidence of Dr. Chwla PW-8. Ih tiiis view of the matter. the conviction of the appel!ant yndes Section 354 IPC as a!so on two counts under Section 324 IPG is w&i! founded and does not ca!! for &ny interference. • 9. So fcir o.3 the question of sentence awarded by •riie !eamed tria! Judg® is concerned, the oppeliant hdd afready •undergone incarcero.tion fQr a period of 2 months and 5 days. 7ne injury sustained by Hiro Bai wasa simple injury and notas a result of ths assault made by t'ne appellant but due to her holding the knife of the oppe!l t and was superficia! in nature. TSie injuFysustained by Vimla Bai was a!so a simple injury. The x-rayreport 011 record was not ppoved by the prosecution which a'so shows tho^ there wds noin+erna! injuiiy sustained by Vimla 8ai in her: abdomen. So faras the offence under Section 354 IPC is concernad, tne evidence ied by the prosecution shows that the qjpellont had merejy held the hand of Vimlo. Bdii and on 'ier shouts, had assauited her with a knife. The appe!!ant thereafter, did not mo.ke any further effort to outrage her modest/. In view of the afore.so.id circufflstances.in my cor.sidere.d opinion, the interest of justice would be served if the appellanyis senteneed to imprisonment already undergone ^ ' ' • .'..'••::•. by.-hitn for d'ffencet under.Section 354.IPC and for ea.Gh '.<: ~ ~ .-"-- - - - - — - "-- ^. --. ^ --— offence.^ under Section 324 IPC and-aiso to a fine iof Rs. 3.000/- underlSection 354 IPCand to afine of Rs. 5.000/- fw euch. offepceunder Section 324 IPC. In default of piayment of w (/ Priya fi.'i®,the appeltant Sierein shall undepgo 5.1. for 3 months on ec.ch count. Out of the amount of fine. a sum of Rs. 10.000/- sho.il be po.id to Vimla Bai, 6/0 Dau Ram, ft/o Barauda. P^S. Rajim, SiStt.. Mol-iasamund as compensation. The learned tria! Judge is directed to issue riotlce to &OH Ram for ascertaining ths iriatriiTiOriia! address of VimSa Bai and to ensure payment of compenso.tion to her, Sdf- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmu^ judge ^E M t:1'^