Chattisgarh High Court
Ganesh Ram @ Banthu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 August, 2022
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 487 of 2014
Ganesh Ram @ Banthu S/o . Firat Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o.
Vill. Semra, P.S. Nawagarh, Civil and Revenue District Janjgir-Champa
C.G., Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrare, Janjgir-
Champa/Station House Officer, Police Station Nawagarh, District
Janjgir-Champa C.G., Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents/Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. C.P. Lahrey, Advocate.
For State/respondent : Mr. Lalit Jangde, Deputy Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17-08-2022
1. The applicant has filed the instant criminal revision invoking power under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he is challenging the conviction and sentence recorded by the lower appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.100/12 dated 09-07-2014 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge Janjgir (C.G.) whereby conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa in Criminal Case No.201/2011 dated 16-07-2012 has been modified and sentence of six months' R.I. has been reduced to four months' R.I., whereas, the amount of fine, i.e., Rs. 500/- has been affirmed.
2. The allegation against the present applicant is that, on 16-06-2011 at about 11:00 p.m. the present applicant forcibly entered into the house of the complainant and tried to outrage her modesty. The FIR was lodged on 22-06- 2011 against the present applicant and offence punishable under Section 456, 354 of the IPC was registered against the present applicant. After Page 2 of 4 completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed. Learned trial Court framed the charges for offence punishable under Section 456 and 354 of the IPC against the present applicant. The applicant abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty.
3. The prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses in support of case of the prosecution and exhibited four documents. After conclusion of the trial learned trial Court convicted the applicant under Section 456 of the IPC and acquitted him from the charge of Section 354 of the IPC. The applicant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for one week.
Learned counsel for the applicant preferred the appeal against the conviction and sentence before the Sessions Court Janjgir which came for disposal before the Second Additional Sessions Judge Janjgir. The case was registered as Criminal Appeal No.100/2012 and the same has been decided on 09-07-2014 wherein the lower appellate Court upheld conviction of the applicant under Section 456 of the IPC and reduced the jail sentence of six months to four months and also affirmed the amount of fine, i.e., Rs.500/-.
4. The applicant has preferred this instant criminal revision challenging the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court dated 09-07-2014.
5. Mr. C.P. Lahrey, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that there was dispute between family members of the applicant and family members of the complainant and the same has been admitted by complainant Kachra Bai (PW-1) in para 3 of her deposition. He further submits that the incident had taken place in the year 2011, at that time the applicant was aged about 40 years and between these years he never misused the liberty of bail granted by the trial Court, lower appellate Court and this Court. His next contention is that, in Section 456 of the IPC there is no minimum punishment and punishment for lurking house trespass or Page 3 of 4 house-breaking by night is provided with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine and thus, the sentence awarded by the courts below is harsh.
6. On the other hand, leaned counsel for the State Mr. Lalit Jangde, Deputy Govt. Advocate opposes the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant and submits that the case has been proved by the evidence of eye- witness beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment passed by the court below does not require any interference by this Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. According to the FIR the incident had taken place on 16-06-2011 and the FIR was lodged on 22-06-2011 after six days and the reason of delay has not been explained by the prosecution. Complainant Kachara Bai (PW-1) in para 3 of her deposition has admitted the fact that there is enmity between the applicant and her family and she has further admitted that the FIR was lodged against her son by the applicant on 17-06-2011. She has further admitted that the report was reduced in writing by one Bahrata Kaushik and the same was not read over to her. Arvind Bhardwaj (PW-2) has supported the case of prosecution. Firandas (PW-3) has not supported the case of prosecution and he was declared hostile and likewise Atmaram (PW-4) was also declared hostile. Mahendra Pandey (PW-5) is Asst. Sub-Inspector who was Investigation Officer in the case has admitted registration of the FIR, preparation of the site plan, recording of the statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. In cross-examination there is nothing in favour of the applicant.
9. The FIR was registered after delay of six days which has not been explained by the prosecution, there was enmity between the applicant and the son of the complainant, the applicant remained in judicial custody for a period of 1 month 11 days and there is no minimum sentence prescribed under Section 456 of the IPC, therefore, I am of the opinion that the sentence Page 4 of 4 awarded to the applicant can be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Consequently, this criminal revision is partly allowed maintaining conviction of the applicant under Section 456 of the IPC and the jail sentence of four months is modified to the period already undergone by the applicant. The fine sentence is also affirmed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Aadil