@_ Single Bench ‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Cr. A. No. EH 2004 APPELLANT : Bholu @ Nawaz Khan, . 1 JAIL) S/o. Late Nawab Khan :(bD m‘} Aged about 24 years y (3V! l 4W. ..-m Occupation—Labour R/o. Sanjay Nagar Ward, ., ».¢\scw-"e i .4 .. Kanker (C.G.) :KOID’R‘ m, (yd‘i‘kw ‘ VERSUS RESPONDENT : The‘ State of Chhattisgafh Through P.S.:Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S. 374 (g) OF CRIMINAL gV PROCEDURE CODE J [ XI-Hc—78 { WW,WW,W C‘x-A won \olqllabh o .oooo.o.o.o.o‘o.o...o WWGFW) wmm WWWW 17.07.2006 For the appellant. m1 Shipra Biswas. counsel :br State. L Shri Ravindra Agarwal. PL llant at the vew outset submitted thast she would not assail the convi tion of the appellant under Sections 456. 3S4 of EC and also under l ections 3 (1) (Xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Trihes @re ntion of Atrocities) Act, 1939 and would grgue‘this appeal only on th question of sentence. In view of the submission made above, this appeal was heard finally qnly on the question of sent nce. The appellannwas convicte under Sections 456, 354 of the PC and also under Section 3 (1) (xi) f Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe' (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1 89 and was sentencedto undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 yea s and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to und ergo SI. for 2 months under Section 456 of IPC. to undergo rigorous irrprisonment for 2 years‘under Section 354 EEC and to undergo rigorous inprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 1.000/— and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI. for 2 months under Section 3 (1) (xi) (f Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19E Sessions Trial No.525/2003 by E Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG). The learned trial Judge l Leld that it was proved that in the lm of October, 2003 the appellant committed house trespass and cutraged the vmodesty of Deepali, a member of Scheduled Caste and force on her i.e. by holding her hat. WW&'WW %3T%w311%$r \1, Learned counsel for the a l 9 Vide judgnent 29.9.2004 passed in hri Surendra Tiwari, Special Judge. Scheduled Tribe by using criminal d H‘x intervening night of 9m and 1t e We» C'a‘ 74~NO* lc’mlwéh VWW ¢.¢‘Q§‘§QQ‘Q0.Q#.Q¢‘~ GE 200 WW(W) WW%’WW § mwmm - %manam ku bh1p1a Blswas leamcd ‘Eounscl for the appellant submitted l since 17.10.2003 to 5.11.2003 and 1s undelgomg sentance from 22 5 2004 till date. The appellant is a pogx labourer and due to his incarc ation, his family is living in a state of ‘penury. She therefore. prayed a that the appellant was m Jall dunng :‘ XI—HC—78 ; it was a fit case in which the sentence awarded bv the learned 1 judge should be reduced to the sentence already undergone by th appellant On the other hand, bhn Agarwal leamed counsel r State opposed the prayer, though formally. }&Ving heard. the rival cont ntions, I have perused the record. The only allegation against the appe lant is that he entered the house of the prosecutrix late at night and c ght hold of her hand and on her shouting. ran away from the house. The defence taken by the appellant was that he had been called by the rosecutrix at her house and having been seen by her father, the report w s lodged. Having considered the facts nd circumstances of the ease and the fact that the appellant has already undergone sentence for a period of 2 years 2 Vz months and incarceratio from 17.10.2003 to 5.11.2003 the interest of justice would be served the sentence of R1. for 2 vears under Section 354 of IPC is main d and the sentence awarded under $ections 456' of IPC. and 3 (I) (Xi) of SC/ST Act is reduced to the period ' already undergone by the appellant. Sentence awarded thus, shall run concurrently The sentence of fine warded by the learned trial Judge under Section 456 [PC and 3 (1) (x1) f SC/ST Act 1s maintained surggl ‘ Sdl- Dlllp Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priva 'a a fo ' t ' e