Ramesh Banchhore v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 451 of 2009 • Ramesh Banchhore, aged about 26 years, S/o Shri Mohrsai Banchhore, R/o Village Pithaura, Thana and Tahsil - Pithaura, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police Station - Sankara, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant :

Ms. Pushplata Khalkho, Advocate on behalf of Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Anurag Verma, PL Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board 07.08.2019 1.

The present revision arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.06.2009 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, District - Mahasamund, in Cr. Appeal No. 09/2009, whereby the learned appellate Court below has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused/applicant awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahasamund, vide its judgment dated 07.01.2009 in Cr. Case No. 326/2008 for the offence under Section 354 and 326of the IPC, and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year along with fine of Rs. 500/- and RI for two years along with fine of Rs.2000/-, with default stipulations.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that on 30.08.2008, at about 13.00 clock, when prosecutrix was gone to attend the nature call, at that time

the applicant came there and caught off hold her hands with intention to outraged her modesty, the prosecutrix opposing the same and when she started hue and cry, the applicant assaulted her with knife in her stomach. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged against the applicant. After filing of charge-sheet, charges were framed against the accused/applicant under Sections 354 and 326 of the IPC. 3.

So as to prove the guilt of the accused/applicant, the prosecution has examined 06 witnesses. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges leveled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

4.

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.2009, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, has convicted the applicant under Sections 354 and 326 of the IPC, and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year along with fine of Rs.500/- and RI for two years along with fine of Rs. 2000/-, plus default stipulations. This order was appealed by the applicant and in the appeal, learned appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant. Hence, the present revision. 5.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment.

6.

Counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing this revision as far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2008 and thereby more than 11 years have rolled by since then. He is

aged about 40 years. The applicant has already remained in jail for about more than six months and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

7.

Learned State counsel has no objection to this preposition. 8.

Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses prosecutrix (PW-1), Abhay Kumar Dubey(PW-2), Smt. Suchitra Rai(PW-3), Dr. Lakshmi Shankar Prasad(PW-4), Subhash Rai(PW-5) and V.S. Urmaliya (PW-06), establishes the involvement of the accused/applicant in the crime in question, this Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by both the Courts below as regards conviction of the applicant under Sections 354 and 326 of the IPC, being so are hereby maintained.

9.

As regards sentence, keeping in view the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2008 and the applicant has already remained in jail for about more than six months and further considering the fact that the applicant has already faced a prolonged trial and suffered trauma of uncertainty arising out of his conviction by the Sessions Court, the revision is partly allowed and his sentence is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained.

10.

The applicant is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged. 11.

Revision thus partly succeeds.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) yasmin JUDGE