Yogesh Kumar Jangade vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, J

The present revision is listed today for non-appearance of accused/applicant before the Registry on 30.08.2019.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/revisionist submits that the applicant was not present before the Registry on 30.08.2019, but he is in contact with him. He further prays that presence of applicant may be exempted and present revision may be heard and disposed of by this Court.

This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.08.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur (C.G.), arising out of the judgment and conviction dated 25.07.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha (C.G.) passed in Criminal Case No. 371/2013 wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional simple imprisonment for five months. In the appeal, the learned Appellate Court maintained the conviction of the applicant but reduced the sentence from one year R.I. to six months R.I.

The case of the prosecution in brief, is that on 03.07.2013, the complainant Smt. Lata Bai Dinkar has lodged the oral report at P.S. Bilha, stating that on dated 02.07.2013 was sleeping along with her husband and children after having the dinner. At around 4:00 AM in the morning on dated 03.07.2013, the complainant awoke for the call of nature, and during the course of urinal, the applicant Yogesh Kumar of the same village arrived there and tried to drag the complainant by holding her left hand, when the complainant made effort to resist by screaming, then by closing the mouth of complainant by one hand, drag with the bad intention. thereafter, complainant tried to hit the accused with punch and called her husband on which the applicant absconded by leaving her. On the basis of the complainant report, the police of P.S. Bilha had registered the offence in Crime No.97/2013 under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet before the concerned Magistrate.

During trial, the applicant denied the alleged offence and after examination of witnesses and on perusal of record, learned Court found the applicant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. However, in the appeal, the learned Appellate Court maintained the conviction of the applicant but reduced the sentence from one year to six months R.I. Hence, this revision.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has wrongly been convicted by the learned Trial Court. The impugned judgment dated 08.08.2013 passed by the learned Appellate Court is contrary to law and evidence available on record. Learned counsel emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant has already undergone about two months and 13 days of jail sentence. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. He further submits that the applicant has already deposited the fine amount.

Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing 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, perused the judgments of the trial Court and records of the trial Court 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 under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Thus, I am of the view that the trial Court and the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in affirming the conviction of the applicant for offence under Section 354 of the IPC.

Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant is facing criminal trial since 2013 and thus, more than 11 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone about 2 months and 13 days of jail sentence and there would be no useful purpose to again send the applicant in jail as he has already suffered agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for six months under Section 354 of the IPC to the period already undergone by him i.e. two months and 13 days. However, the applicant is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- in addition to the fine amount as directed by the trial Court within one month from today before the trial Court concerned, failing which he shall undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the learned Appellate Court. Ordered accordingly.

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

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