SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ramprasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh 21 … on 30 September, 2019

1

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved on 27-9-2019
Pronounced on 30-9-2019
CRA No. 825 of 2009

(Arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
12/11/2009 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Janjgir Champa
(CG) in Special Case No. 112/2009)
Ramprasad, son of Shri Paitram Kashyap, aged about 35 years,
Resident of Semariya, Police Station Bamhanideeh, District Janjgir
Champa (CG).
—- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Bamhanideeh, District
Janjgir Champa (CG).
—- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
For State : Mr. Vaibhav K. Agrawal, Panel Lawyer

Hon’ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, J.

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

1. Challenge in this appeal is levied to the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 12/11/2009 passed by the Special
Sessions Judge, Janjgir Champa (CG) in Special Case No. 112/2009
whereby and whereunder, he has convicted and sentenced the
appellant as under :-

Conviction u/S. Sentence RI. Fine In default of
payment of fine
354 Indian 6 months Rs.1,000/- 15 days RI
Penal Code (in
brevity ‘SectionIPC’)

2. In brief, the prosecution story is that at the time of alleged
incident prosecutrix was 32 years old. She was the resident of BALCO.
She was a Teacher in Government Primary School, Bansula. On
17.03.2009 she was returning back from the school to her house on
bicycle, at about 4:30 pm she reached near the small dam (Chhote
Bandha) at village Semriya, from the backside the appellant came on
bicycle and touched her back by hand twice. She narrated the incident
2

to Kalesh Ram Kashyap. Thereafter, she went to police station
Bamhnidih and lodged an FIR against him at about 17:30 hrs. After
completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against him.
The trial Court framed the charges against him under Sections 354,
Section294, Section506-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Caste and
SectionScheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘SCST
Act’). He abjured the charges and faced the trial. To bring home the
charges against him, the prosecution examined as many as 6
witnesses. He examined one witness on his defence. After conclusion
of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him as mentioned
above. However, the trial Court acquitted him for the offences
punishable under Sections 294, Section506-II IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC,
SectionST Act.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal.

4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been
falsely implicated. Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence
available on record in proper perspective. Therefore, the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence may be set aside and he
may be acquitted of the aforesaid charge.

5. On the other hand, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State
supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the trial Court
has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. Hence, the appeal
may be dismissed.

6. P.W.-1 prosecutrix says in para 1 of her statement given on oath
that on 17.03.2009 about 04:30 pm she was returning to her house
from the school on bicycle, on the way ahead of village Semriya
appellant came from back side by bicycle, touched her back.

7. D.W.-1 Amar Lal Kashyap says in paras 3 and 4 of his statement
given on oath that he was rubbing Gudakhu on other side of the dam,
he saw that the bicycles of appellant and prosecutrix met with an
accident.

8. There are no such omissions and contradictions dealt during
cross-examination of P.W.-1 prosecutrix on strength of which it can be
said that aforesaid statement of P.W. 1 prosecutrix is untrustworthy.

9. As per the alleged FIR Ex. P-1, prosecutrix was returning back to
3

her house on bicycle, on the way appellant came from the back side on
bicycle and touched her back by his hand.

10. In the case in hand, the alleged date of incident is 17.03.2009 at
about 04:30 pm and Ex. P-1 has been lodged on 17.03.2009 at about
05:30 pm.

11. Ex. P-1 lodged promptly without any delay.

12. There is no such evidence on record on strength of which it can
be said that Ex. P-1 is fabricated or concocted to falsely implicate the
appellant in alleged offence.

13. D.W.1 Amar Lal Kashyap says in para 6 during his cross
examination that at the time of alleged incident he was not rubbing
Gudakhu, he was rubbing Gudakhu on next day of incident.

14. There is no such material available on record on the strength of
which it can be said that the aforesaid statement of P.W.1 prosecutrix is
not natural, not normal, not simple, thus, this Court believes on
aforesaid statement of prosecutrix and disbelieves aforesaid statement
of D.W. 1 Amar Lal Kashyap.

15. After the appreciation of the evidence discussed herebefore, this
Court finds that prosecution has succeeded to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the charge punishable under Section 354 IPC against
the appellant, thus aforesaid conviction of appellant is affirmed.

16. So far as sentence is concerned the appellant remained in jail
from 20.04.2009 to 23.04.2009. Near about 10 years have passed from
the date of incident. At the time of incident appellant was aged about 35
years, now he is about 45 years old. Now, he is in main stream of
society. Sending him to jail would disturb him as well as his family
members’ life. At the time of incident no minimum jail sentence was
provided for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. Hence no
useful purpose would be served if he is sent to jail after 10 years of the
incident. Looking to these circumstances and observation made by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SectionManjappa vs. State of
Karntaka {(2007) 6 SCC 231} this Court is of the opinion that cause of
justice would be subserved if RI for 6 months is reduced to the
sentence for the period already undergone by him and fine amount be
suitably enhanced.

17. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The sentence of the
4

appellant under Section 354 IPC to undergo RI for 6 months is reduced
to the period already undergone by him and fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-
is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). In
default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo additional RI for 3
months.

18. The appellant is granted two months’ time from the date of this
order for depositing the fine amount. The fine amount deposited earlier
by the appellant shall be adjusted in the fine amount of Rs. 25,000/-.

19. After the prescribed period of legal remedy available to the
parties, Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand ) out of the fine amount
Rs. 25,000/- if deposited, be given to the prosecutrix as compensation.

20. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds stands
discharged subject to the provisions contained in Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

(Sharad Kumar Gupta)
Judge

Laxmi/-

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