Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh, Through
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.03.28 16:57:53 +0530 2025:CGHC:14913 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 702 of 2012 Puran Sonkar, S/o Santosh Sonkar, aged about 21 years, R/o Mahamayapara, Simga, PS Simga, District - Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through - SHO, PS Bhatapara (City), District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant For Respondent/State : : None
Legal Reasoning
Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 27.03.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.08.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 14/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 363 & 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months with fine of Rs.100/-, and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.100/-, respectively with default stipulations. 2 2. In compliance of bailable warrant issued by this Court, the appellant is present before this Court. The victim (PW-1) is also present before this Court as the wife of the appellant along with their small child. The State Counsel enquire and identified the victim (PW-1). 3. The case of prosecution, in short, is that, On 22.01.2011, the victim (PW-1) aged about 16 years, left her home for school but did not return until 9 PM night. As a result, father of the victim/complainant (PW-4) began searching for her. During the search, a person named Parasram Sonkar (PW-2) informed the complainant that he had seen the victim with accused/appellant, Puran Sonkar, boarding a bus going to Kawardha. Based on this information, the complainant reported the matter to Simga Police Station, stating that the accused, Puran Sonkar, had lured his daughter away by deception and the promise of marriage. Based on the complainant’s report, a First Information Report was registered vide Exhibit P-05. During the investigation, the site map was prepared, the victim (PW-01) underwent a medical examination conducted by Dr. Sushma Maheshwari (PW-10). Her medical report is Ex.P-2. Additionally, the victim’s mark sheet was seized during the investigation, which confirmed that she was under 18 years of age at the time of the incident. after completion of investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the appellant for offence U/s 376 of IPC, however, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present 3 appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 6. Since, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, therefore, the appellant himself requested that the incident is about 14 years old, he is facing the lis since 2011, he married with the victim (PW-1) and out of their wedlock they have one child and he has already remained in jail for about 2 months and 2 days in jail, therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Hence, in order to ascertain the correctness of the impugned judgment, I am going to decide this appeal. 7. learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and submits that the impugned judgment is just and proper and requires no interference. 8. Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 9. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of father of the victim (PW-4), Parasram (PW-2), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 10.As regards the sentence part, the appellant is present before this Court today and the victim (PW-1) is also present before this Court today as the wife of the appellant along with their small child. The appellant has stated that he married the victim after the case was filed, which has been confirmed by the victim herself, the incident had taken place in the year 2011 i.e. about 14 years ago. At that time, the appellant was aged about 21 years and now he must be aged about 35 years having his family responsibility. The appellant is facing the lis since 2011, the victim and the appellant living 4 happily together, the victim has no grievance with the appellant and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 2 months, 2 days. Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to send back the appellant to jail and the ends of justice would serve if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC is maintained and the sentence of SI for 6 months and RI for 1 year is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 2 months 2 days. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 12. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13. The appellant is on bail. He need not 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. 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham