SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Heeradhan Uraon And Anr vs State Of C.G on 15 February, 2019

1

NAFR
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.
95/1998 )

1. Heeradhan Uraon son of Late Bandhanram Uraon aged about 30
years, R/o. Takro Dandpara, Jamarghidi, P.S. Dharamjaigarh
(CG)

2. Dhaniram Uraon, son of Shaniram Uraon, aged 41 years, R/o.
Laxmi Nagar, P.S. Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG)

—-Appellants

-Versus-

State of Chhattisgarh through PS Dharamjaigarh (CG)

—-Respondent

For appellants : Shri Suresh Tandan, Advocate
For State : Shri Wasim Miyan, Panel Lawyer.

Hon’ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge
ORAL JUDGMENT

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
2

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
3

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.

Sd/-

(Sharad Kumar Gupta)
Judge

Pathak/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation