Chattisgarh High Court
Nuklesh Satnami @ Tetku vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:15353
Digitally
A signed by
ANNAJEE A
RAO ANNAJEE
RAO
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 886 of 2007
1 - Nuklesh Satnami @ Tetku, aged about 22 years, S/o Kusho Ram
Khunte, Caste Satnami, R/o Reewandih, P.S. Saragaon, at present R/o
Nakatidih, P.S. Bamhanidih, Distt.-Janjgir-Champa,C.G. ... Appellant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Bamhanidih, District
Janjgir Champa ... Respondent
For the appellant : Mr. N.K. Mehta, Advocate
For the State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judgment on Board
01/04 /2025
1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.09.2007 passed in S.T.No.161/2007 by the 2 learned II Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir, whereby the the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :
U/s 363 of IPC : RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 6 months.
U/s 366 of IPC : RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 6 months.
By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant for the offence under section 376 of IPC holding that the victim was a consenting party and instead the offence committed by the appellant is punishable under sections 363 & 366 of IPC.
2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 6th & 7th May , a report was lodged at Bamhnidih Police Station by the father of victim namely Ghansiyaram Satnami regarding missing of his daughter, on which, a missing case was registered and the investigation was carried out. During investigation, it was found that the accused Nuklesh of the same village was also missing from the said date of the incident, and it is alleged that the victim girl, who was aged about 17 years was allured and kidnapped by the accused from the lawful custody of her parents on the pretext of marriage and was kept in village Satgarh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand where she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. On 18.07.2007, the girl and accused both were recovered from Mahuatoli Police Station (Jharkhand) and were brought to Bamhnidih Police Station (Chhattisgarh). Thereafter, the medical examination of the victim girl and 3 the accused was done. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, necessary documents were prepared, seizure of clothes was made and the accused was arrested. After completing investigation and complying with the procedural requirements, charge sheet was filed.
3. The prosecution has in all examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in Para-1.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 03 - 03 years' RI awarded to him u/s 363 & 366 of IPC, he had already remained in jail for about 4 months 25 days. He submits that the incident took place in the year 2007, since then the appellant is facing the lis and this appeal is pending since 2007 and now he is aged about 39 years. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents reported against the appellant and prays that the sentence of the appellant under sections 363 & 366 of IPC, may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 4
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.
7. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of victim (P.W.2), complainant Ghasiya Ram (P.W.3), who is father of victim, Head Constable Omkar Prasad Dubey (P.W.5), Head Constable Mansai Paikra (P.W.11) who established the involvement of accused regarding taking away the victim from the lawful custody of her parents, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 363 & 366 of IPC and it is hereby affirmed.
8. As regards the sentence of Appellant Nuklesh Satnami @ Tetku, considering the facts that the incident had taken place in 2007 about 17 years ago and the maximum jail sentence awarded to him is RI for 03 - 03 years u/s 363 and 366 IPC, out of which, as stated by learned counsel he had already remained in jail for about 4 months 25 days and is facing the lis since 2007 and further looking to his present age as also considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against him, in the interest of justice and in the considered opinion of this Court, instead of again sending him to jail, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant from 3 years R.I. to the period already undergone by him i.e. 4 months and 25 days for the offence punishable under Sections 363 & 366 IPC. It is ordered accordingly. 5
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.
10. Appellant is on bail. He need not again surrender in this case. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC.
11. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao