HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved on 14-2-2019
Delivered On 15-2-2019
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 16 OF 2000
(Arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18-
10-2000 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in ST No.
1. Heeradhan Uraon son of Late Bandhanram Uraon aged about 30
years, R/o. Takro Dandpara, Jamarghidi, P.S. Dharamjaigarh
2. Dhaniram Uraon, son of Shaniram Uraon, aged 41 years, R/o.
Laxmi Nagar, P.S. Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG)
State of Chhattisgarh through PS Dharamjaigarh (CG)
For appellants : Shri Suresh Tandan, Advocate
For State : Shri Wasim Miyan, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge
1. In this criminal appeal the challenge levied is to the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 18-10-2000 passed by 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in ST No. 95/1998 whereby and
whereunder he convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :-
Offence u/S. RI for Fine sentence In default of payment of fine
354, IPC Six months Rs. 500/- RI for 1 ½ months
506(2), IPC Six months Rs. 500/- RI for 1 ½ months
Both the jail sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. In brief, case of the prosecution is that on 28-4-1998 about 16
hour at village Jamargidi appellants had caught hold the prosecutrix
who was 21 years old. Appellant No. 1 Heeradhan had a tomahawk and
appellant No. 2 Dhaniram had an axe. Appellant No. 1 Heeradhan
committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Both the appellants had
given threats to kill her. On very day prosecutrix lodged an FIR in police
station Dharamjaigarh. After completion of the investigation a charge
sheet was filed against them. The Trial Court framed the charges
against them under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506-II of the Indian Penal
Code (in brevity ‘IPC’). After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court
convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid however they have been
acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g), IPC.
3. Counsel for the appellants at the outset urged that he is not
challenging the conviction of the appellants rather he is challenging
only the aforesaid period of sentences of RI for 6 months on each
count. He further submitted that the appellants have already undergone
jail sentences from 1-5-1998 to 31-8-1998 i.e. about 4 months, thus the
period of RI for six months on each count may be reduced to the period
already undergone by them.
4. The State Counsel argued that sentences awarded to the
appellants are just and proper and do not call for any interference.
5. At the time of the incident, no minimum imprisonment was
provided for the offence punishable under Section 354, IPC. The
appellants have remained in jail for about 4 months. About 20 years
have passed after the incident. At the time of incident, appellant No. 1
Heeradhan was aged 30 years, now he is 50 years of age. The
appellant No. 2 Dhaniram was aged about 41 years, now he is 61 years
old. Now they are in mainstream of society. Sending them jail would
disturb their as well as their family members’ life. Hence, no useful
purpose would be served if they are sent to jail after 20 years of the
incident. Looking to these circumstances and observation made by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjappa -v- State of
Karnataka [(2007) 6 SCC 231] this Court is of the opinion that cause of
justice would be sub-served, if RI of six months on each count is
reduced to the sentence for the period already undergone by them with
fine sentences as awarded by the trial Court.
6. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The sentences of
appellants of RI for six months on each count are reduced to the period
already undergone by them and the fine sentences and default clauses
awarded by the trial Court are affirmed.
7. The appellants are reported to be on bail. They need not
surrender. Their bail and bonds shall continue for a further period of six
months as per requirement of Section 437-A, Cr.P.C.
(Sharad Kumar Gupta)