a HEGH WURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: E ‘N HoN’BLE saw Ru L. JHANWA J. Q? Cniminak Apnea} No. 1 137] 199 1 APPELLANT Chitlal alias Chaitalllal ‘ RESPGNDENT‘ State of MP. {(Now CG.) G W Q; 7 JUDGMENT POST ON 21 AUGUST, 2009 Sd/- H 7 ‘N Judge gag/2009 (4? £i£§z§£ @QURT QF €EH$§E§GARE: 3ILAS?UR $INGLE EENCE—i: EE@N’ELE $HRI RAJESHww L&L JHANWAR, J. CREMIN&L MFEFgL N6. 1 13?/ 199 1 AppeiEaix€ Chit‘kal alias Chaitanlal} son of Bachnuram Satnami) aged about 26 years, rési&ent of Vidhyadhiya, RS‘ Masturi, Districi: Bilaspur Vezsam EespamEem' Th6 Smte of MP. {new Chhattisgarh) Criminal Apnea! uis 37f4 mi of the Cr.P.C. ‘: fre$eair Sin-i Arun Kochar, counsel for the appBHan‘t. Shli Pradeep Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. J U D G M E T (Dehlered on _8/ 2009) l. This cr‘imimal appeai is directed agamst the jmigmsnt of conviction and .‘t orciar of $ent3nce datsd 6th D€Cember,‘ 1991 passal by fhc learned 4th Additional SeSSions Judge, Bilaspur in SIT, N0233} 1990, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellallt for commission of oi‘fence punishable under Section 354 of the {PC and sentenced him to undergo RI. for l year. . H. is not m dispute that the prosecutrix and the appeEant are resident of same ViElage and weH known to each other. . The prosecutiori story, in brief, is that on 21.4. 1990 when the prosecutrix v' after attemling the call of nature was retaining back at 3:30 pm., the appelizm‘x caught he: from her back and pushed her on the giound and tried to ravish her. She shouted for help, whereupoil Balkunwar reached‘ there and after seeing her, accused iled from the spot. Whiie she was defending herself, she sustained injuries on her hands and elbow and also su§ered paiil over the back due to forcefully pushing her on ’rhe ground. She returned to her home and narrated rhe incident to her husbaod. Pailchayat was convened in the Village aml the incideot‘ was also narraiecl in the Panchaya‘i. Report, EX. ?~3, was lodged Willa ihe police sia'tion. Investigation rook place. After due investigatiozl Charge sheet under Sections 376, 51 1 and 323 against the appellan‘: was filed ill the Court of Judicial Magistraie, First Class, Bilaspur, who, is due (5’1 course, committ'a1 the case t0 Court of Sessions Biiaspur. Léamsd Sessiens Judge mack: ovm‘ Th6 case to the learned 4th Arlditional Sessions iudgs, Bilaspur for tn'al. 4. The lsarned 4th Addiijional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur framsd charge against accussd undsr Section 376f511 of me IPC and read over anci explained m the appellant, who aisjured the guilt and pleadeé that he has been} falsely implicated in the case. U'l The learned trial Court after evaluatmg the evidence available on record held Ethe appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section S54 of The IPC instead of Section 376f511 of the IPC and, thereafter, convicted and sentenced him, as above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset argued only on the point of quantum of senfence. Leamed counsel forthe appellant has brought the circumstances under which a lenient View could be taken by the Court. He submitted that the appellant is of the age about 45 years and the incident took place about 20 years ago. The appellant is on bail and no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant back .to prison after a long span. He has already suffered for what he did and therefore, he prayed for leniency. . l have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the record of the trial Court. 8. After perusal of impugned judgment and the evidence available on record it is clear that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in awarding conviction to the appellant under Section 354 of the EPC. So far as the Section 354- is concerned, sentence of 1 ye‘ar awarded to the accused seems to be excessive. lt is not in dispute that the appellant has already undergone more then 3 O\ months of jail sentence, the appellant and prosecutrix were the resident of same village and also well known to each other. 10. .l-laving considered the overall evidence available on record and considering all facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the modem trend of penology, where the effort to improve an offender to make him an useful member of society, if he has shown his such trend, and further that the incident took place about 2O years ago and at the time of incident the accusedfappellant was about 26 years old only and E “a l l i l i rz i w 3 @517 110w is of 45 years, he is not a habitual Offamier, I am of the cansidered opinion that if the substantive S€nt€nce imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him that will meet the ends of q justice. 11. Accordiilgly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction recorded by the tiial Court. is maintained. However, subetantive sentence awarded to the appell&t under Section 354 of the IPC is modified and instead of Sentence of 1 year RI. imposed upon the appeilant, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. i i Sd/- , R.L. Jhanwar ‘ a ‘ 1 Judge