SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Lal Sai vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2 … on 17 December, 2018

NAFR
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.)

—- Applicant

Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Korba District Korba
(C.G.)

—- Respondent

——————————————————————————————

For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Mishra, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer

——————————————————————————————

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor

CAV Order

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

been affirmed.

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
2

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

carefully.

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
3

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.

Sd/-

(Vimla Singh Kapoor)
JUDGE
Jyotishi/Santosh

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