HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 352 of 2005
Order reserved on 19.11.2018
Order delivered on 17.12.2018
Lal Sai S/o. Pratap Singh, Aged about 30 years, R/o. Village
Amjhar, P.S. Pasaan, District Korba (C.G.)
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Korba District Korba
For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Mishra, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor
By the judgment under challenge passed on 12.08.2005 by
Additional Sessions Judge Korba, in Criminal Appeal No. 09 of
2005, the findings recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class Katghora, convicting the accused/applicant under
Sections 456 and 354 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for
six months with fine of Rs. 500/- under section 456 and RI for
three months with fine of Rs. 500/- under section 354 IPC, have
2. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 29.03.2002 at 12 mid-
night the accused/applicant gained an entry in the house of
prosecutrix (PW-2) in order to outrage her modesty. On report
being lodged by her, an offence under Sections 456 and 354 IPC
was registered against him and after completion of investigation
charge sheet was filed.
3. Learned Magistrate having perused the material before it
convicted the accused/applicant under Sections 456 and 354 IPC
IPC and sentenced him as above, which on appeal has been
affirmed by the judgment impugned. Hence, this revision.
4. Conviction is not being pressed on merit and the sole prayer
made by the counsel for the applicant is confined to reduction of
sentence imposed on the accused/applicant to the period already
undergone on account of the fact that the case is quite old and
the accused/applicant has already remained in jail for some time.
5. State counsel however, supports the findings recorded by
the both the Courts below.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
judgment impugned and the evidence available on record
7. From the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-2), her son (PW-3)
as also her brother-in-law (PW-4), it is evident that on the date of
incident the accused/applicant committed a house trespass in
the night hours in order to outrage her modesty, and therefore,
the findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below
appear to be fully justified. It is hereby maintained.
8. As regards sentence, keeping in view the fact that the incident
had taken place in the year 2002, that the accused/applicant has
already remained in jail for a period of seventeen days and
further that by now he must be leading a well settled life saddled
with innumerable responsibilities, this Court thinks it proper to
reduce the sentence imposed on him to the period already
undergone. Order accordingly.
9. With the above, the revision stands allowed in part.
(Vimla Singh Kapoor)