NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 777 of 2013 Mukesh Kumar Jaisawal @ Mintu Jaisawal, S/o Ishwar Prasad Jaiswal aged about 25 Years, R/o. Vill. Sero, P.S. And Tah. Dhabhara, Distt. Janjgir-

Champa C.G. ---- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G.

---- Non-applicant (Cause-title taken from Case Information)

For Applicant : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate.

For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

01/04/2024

1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 122/2012, arising out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09.08.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhabhara in Criminal Case No. 263/2011, convicting the revisionist under Sections 457 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 15 days, undergo R.I. for year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I.

for 15 days (all the sentences have been directed to be run concurrently).

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 07/09/2011 at about

10:00 pm, the revisionist/accused had outraged the modesty of the complainant (PW-1) when she entered into her room with her nephew (Bhanja) by holding her hand with malice intention after committing lurking house trespass by night. The complainant had shouted and to hear which, her father-in- law Munuram (PW-3), mother-in-law Teerath kunwar (PW-5) and brother-in-law Kalakanhun (PW-7) came there and caught hold the accused, however the applicant managed to fly. The sleeper and umbrella of the applicant was seized from the spot. Thereafter, a written report was lodged and F.I.R. dated 08/09/2011 was registered against the applicant. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed before learned J.M.F.C., Dhabhara who had framed charges against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 457 & 354 of the I.P.C. The applicant had abjured the guilt and therefore was tried for the offences punishable under said Sections.

3. The prosecution had examined as many as eight witnesses in support of their allegation and applicant had examined one defense witness, namely, Diwakar Sidar (DW-1). The statement of applicant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the applicant had taken defense of false implication.

4. The learned trial Judge after going through the material available on the record and considering the evidence, had pleased to convict the applicant under Sections 457 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 15 days, undergo R.I. for year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 15 days (all the sentences have been directed to be run concurrently).

5. Being aggrieved whereby the revisionist had preferred an appeal before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir- Champa which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 12/11/2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 122/2012 in a very mechanical and arbitrary manner.

6. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant does not challenge his conviction, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant has already undergone 38 days of jail sentence. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaydev Shrichand Danani v. State of Gujarat reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 616

7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the non-

appl