Ram Agariya vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 12.5.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), in Criminal Appeal No.34/2014, whereby conviction under Section 354 of the IPC awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Criminal Case No.1873/2009 vide judgment dated 31.07.2014 has been affirmed and reduced the sentence from RI for two years to RI for one year and fine amount shall remain intact to the tune of Rs.500/-.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix (PW-1) and the applicant are resident of same village and the applicant is uncle of the prosecutrix through village relations. On the date of incident i.e. 17.12.2009 at about 9 p.m., the applicant informed to mother of the prosecutrix (PW-2) that father of the prosecutrix was slept in drunken condition in school. So, mother of the prosecutrix told to the applicant that she is unable to go at such place because she is having stomach pain and requesting the applicant to bring back her husband and also sent the prosecutrix with him. On the way near school, the applicant grabbed the mouth of the prosecutrix and banged her on the field and also tried to remove her sweater with intention to outrage her modesty, to which the proxecutrix restrained and bite the finger of the applicant and ran away and came back to her house and narrated the incident to her mother (PW-2) and aunt (PW-3). On 18.12.2009, the prosecutrix has lodged FIR vide Ex.P-1, which was registered as FIR No.815/2009 at Police Station Ambikapur. Spot map was prepared by Head Constable Nirmala Kashyap (PW-5) vide Ex.P-2. She has also recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal Court. The applicant abjured his guilt.

In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 3 documents Exs.P-1 to P-3. Statement of the accused/applicant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he has stated for false implication and has not adduced any defence document.

The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 31.07.2014, held the applicant guilty for offence under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further RI for one month, which has been affirmed by the appellate Court. However, the appellate Court has reduced the sentence from RI for two years to RI for one year and fine amount shall remain intact.

Mr.Sakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, would submit that the applicant has been awarded the sentence of one year and fine of Rs.500/- considering his age and also considering that the applicant having no past criminal antecedents as also the offence took place in the year 2009 and at that time, sentence can be awarded up to fine only. So considering this aspects, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably. He would further submit that the applicant has already undergone 2 months and 20 days of jail sentence. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice.

Per contra, Mr.Sudhir Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent/State, would strongly support the impugned judgment and submit that there is no need to interfere with the sentence.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the Courts below with utmost circumspection.

The prosecutrix (PW-1) has categorically deposed in her statement before the Court that on the date of incident the applicant came to her house and informed to her mother that her husband slept in drunken condition in school. So her mother (PW-2) sent her to bring back her father with the applicant, who is uncle through village relations, on the way near school, the applicant grabbed her mouth and banged her on the field, so she restrained and also bitten him, but he in violent manner slept her on the field and also tried to remove her clothes, so she also bitten to his neck and thereafter the applicant left her. After the incident, she came to her home and narrated the incident to her mother (PW-2) and aunt (PW-3). Mother of the prosecutrix (PW-2) has also corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix. In cross-examination of these witnesses, nothing has been elicited which discredit the evidence of the prosecutrix. Aunt of the prosecutrix (PW-3) has also supported the case of the prosecution. The only defence which was taken by the applicant is that there was prior dispute, but the prosecution witnesses have categorically denied having any such dispute. Even otherwise, the applicant failed to prove any such dispute existing on the date of incident. Only on the ground that they are relative witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded. Evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and she is reliable witness. As such, the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. So, both the Courts below have rightly held the applicant guilty for offence under Section 354 of the IPC. So, conviction awarded to the applicant is hereby affirmed.

Now considering the question of sentence. As the incident took place on 17.12.2009 and thereafter more than 13 years has been elapsed and at that time, Section 354 of the IPC which has been amended by Amendment Act 13 of 2013 w.e.f. 3.2.2013, the sentence was only up to two years or with fine or with both.

Considering the age of the applicant, who just crossed 21 years of age and about 22 years and further considering that the applicant has already undergone 2 months and 20 days of jail sentence as during the trial the applicant was in jail for two days and thereafter during the first appellate period from 28.4.2015 and his suspension of sentence has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.7.2015 though there can be no dispute that modesty of a woman has to be strongly guarded, but considering the facts & circumstances of the case and also considering the principle of penology, there would be no useful purpose to again send the applicant in jail as he has already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets to the ends of justice.

So this Court find it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for one year to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 2 months and 20 days and fine amount shall remain intact. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that fine amount has already been deposited. Ordered accordingly.

11.The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.