Chandrahas Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, J

This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 06.02.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.66/2014, affirming the judgment dated 10.09.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.1339/2012, whereby the learned JMFC, Dhamtari has convicted the applicant for offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year

and fine of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 20 days.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.12.2012, at approximately 6:00 p.m., Smt. Bina Sahu went to attend nature's call near the field of Gulel in the Railway area. While returning, the applicant allegedly approached her from behind, caught hold of her and started kissing her. When the victim crying, the applicant pressed her breast and continued kissing her. Subsequently, Smt. Bina Sahu returned home and informed her husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law about the incident. Based on her report (Ex.P.1), thereafter, investigation was initiated by the Police, and the victim undergone a medical examination. Upon completing the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the applicant before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Kurud, under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the alleged incident. The applicant denied guilt.

During the trial, the prosecution has examined Bina Sahu, Sukhnandan, Johat Ram, Raghunandan, Shushila, Hemnath and the defense examined two witnesses namely, Chheduram (D.W.1) and Gohled Ram (D.W.2), thereafter the trial Court convicted and sentenced the applicant. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant has preferred an appeal before the appellate Court which was dismissed by affirmation the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the judgment of the trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the applicant and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. Both the trial Court as well as appellate Court have failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the complainant. Alternatively, he submits that the trial Court has awarded the sentence of RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/- to the applicant. Considering the age of the applicant as applicant presently is aged about 28 years and as he has faced criminal trial since 2012, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant has not spent even a single day in jail as the appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.1339/2012 and bail was granted to him by this Court only on 18.02.2015.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State, submits that both the trial Court and the appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant for offence under Sections 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/. In appeal preferred by the applicant, the appellate Court has maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicant. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting and sentencing the applicant and affirming the conviction of the applicant for offence under Section 354 of IPC.

Now considering the question of sentence. As the criminal trial commenced on 27.12.2012 which continued till 10.09.2014 and though the appeal also continued for about 4 months and this revision petition was pending since 10.02.2015 and as such from the date of commencement of trial, more than 11 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has not spent even a single day in jail as the appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.1339/2012 and bail was granted to him by this Court only on 18.02.2015, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant again in jail as he has already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence of RI for 1 year under Section 354 of IPC by enhancing the fine amount. Accordingly, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/- under Section 354 of IPC, in addition to the amount awarded by the trial Court. Enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the applicant within a period of one month from today before the concerned trial Court and the same shall be paid to Children Observation Home, Dhamtari (C.G.). If the enhanced fine amount is not deposited by the applicant within the stipulated time, he shall further undergo imprisonment as has been ordered by the Trial Court. Ordered accordingly.

The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.