Chhattisgarh HC: Age of person and time lapsed to incident to be considered while deciding the imprisonment period

A single-judge bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur on 15.02.2019 partly allowed the appeal filed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in HEERADHAN URAON and ANR. Vs. STATE OF C.G. (CRA 16 of 2000) whereunder he convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-

Both the jail sentences had been directed to run concurrently. The bench of HC was headed by Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta.

FACTS:

The case of the prosecution was that 16 hour at village Jamargidi appellants had caught hold the prosecutrix who was 21 years old. Appellant No. 1 Heeradhan had a tomahawk and appellant No. 2 Dhaniram had an axe. Heeradhan committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Both the appellants had given threats to kill her. Prosecutrix lodged an FIR in police station Dharamjaigarh on the same day. After completion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed against them. The Trial Court framed the charges against them under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’). After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced them but however they had been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g), IPC.

ISSUES:

• Whether the age of the person to be considered to reduce the period of imprisonment?
• Whether the time period passed to the incident to be considered to reduce the period of imprisonment?

CONTENTIONS:

By appellants:

• Not challenging the conviction of the appellants rather challenging only the aforesaid period of sentences of RI for 6 months on each count.
• The appellants had already undergone jail sentences for about 4 months, thus the period of RI for six months on each count may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

By respondents:

• Crime committed by them is a heinous crime and they should be shown any mercy.
• Sentences awarded to the appellants are just and proper and do not call for any interference.

OBSERVATIONS:

The court observed that:-

• At the time of the incident, no minimum imprisonment was provided for the offence punishable under Section 354, IPC.
• The appellants had remained in jail for about 4 months and about 20 years had passed after the incident.
• Sending them jail would disturb their as well as their family members’ life as Heeradhan is 50 years of age and Dhaniram is 61 years old now.
• Hence, no useful purpose would be served if they are sent to jail after 20 years of the incident.

HELD:

The court partly allowed the appeal by looking to the circumstances and observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjappa -v- State of Karnataka [(2007) 6 SCC 231] and  RI of six months on each count was reduced to the sentence for the period already undergone by them with fine sentences as awarded by the trial Court. The appellants need not surrender as they were reported to be on bail. Their bail and bonds shall continue for a further period of six months as per requirement of Section 437-A, Cr.P.C.

For full judgement refer: 

[embeddoc url=”http://cg.nic.in/hcbspjudgement/judgements_web/CRA16_00(15.02.19).pdf” download=”all”]