BAHAR MIYA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010006412012 2026:CGHC:38433
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 373 of 2012
Bahar Miya S/o Bhure Miya, Aged About 22 Years Talapara Civil Line Police
Station, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Satyendra Shriwas, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS
Date:
2026.09.01
16:09:25
+0530
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS
Order on Board
31.08.2026
1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated
30.04.2012 passed by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge,
Bilaspur, (C.G.), in criminal appeal No. 10/12, arising out of the judgment
and order dated 16.11.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Bilaspur, in criminal case No. 734/2010, whereby the
applicant was convicted and sentenced as under :-
CONVICTION SENTENCE
Under Section 354 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 months
and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo
simple imprisonment for 3 months.

2
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Ishrad Jahan
(P.W.-2), made an oral report on 04.01.2010 at Civil Lines Police Station,
Bilaspur, stating that she was working as a Sales Executive with Tata
Indicom. While she was returning from her office to her home, she
reached near Hussaini Masjid at about 8:20 p.m. In the meantime, the
present applicant, along with his two associates, arrived in an Esteem
car. The applicant stepped out of the car and asked her, “Will you come
with me?” and thereafter pulled her towards the car by holding her hand.
When the complainant raised an alarm and sought help, her mother,
Afsar Bano (P.W.-1), and Mirza Farid Beg (P.W.-4) rushed to the spot
and intervened to prevent the applicant from committing the said act.
Thereafter, the applicant and his associates fled from the spot in the said
car. On the oral complaint of Ishrad Jahan, an F.I.R. was registered vide
Crime No. 11/2010 under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
at Civil Lines Police Station, Bilaspur, at about 21:30 hours.
3. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, the Police prepared a
Nazari Map (Exh.-1) on 05.01.2010, upon which the complainant and her
mother put their signatures as witnesses.
4. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on
08.01.2010 under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. before
the Court of the learned C.J.M., Bilaspur, and thereafter, the case was
transferred to the learned Trial Court for trial. The learned Trial Court
framed charges under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
against the present applicant and the two other accused persons. The
accused persons abjured the charges, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to
be tried. The prosecution examined Afsar Bano, the complainant’s

3
mother (P.W.-1), Ishrad Jahan, the complainant herself (P.W.-2),
Chintaram, the Investigating Officer (P.W.-3), and Mirza Farid Beg (P.W.-
4).
5. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the present
applicant took the defence that he had been falsely implicated in the
present case.
6. The learned trial Court, relying upon the testimony of Afsar Bano (P.W.-1)
and the complainant herself, Ishrad Jahan (P.W.-2), held the present
revisioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the
I.P.C., whereas the other two accused persons, namely, Bhavani
Shankar Tiwari and Nilesh Kumar, were acquitted.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.11.2011 passed by the
learned trial Court, the present applicant preferred an appeal before the
learned Sessions Court, Bilaspur. However, the said appeal, registered
as Criminal Appeal No. 10/2012, was dismissed by the learned 6th
Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, vide judgment dated 30.04.2012.
8. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
does not wish to challenge his conviction. However, he submits that, as
the applicant has already undergone about 53 days of imprisonment for
the offence under Section 354 of the IPC and has also paid the fine
amount, the sentence already undergone by him may suffice to meet the
ends of justice.
9. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non-
applicant/State submits that both the Courts have rightly convicted and
sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for.

4
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with
utmost circumspection.
11. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned trial Court after
considering the material available on record and evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, has convicted the revisionists as mentioned in the
opening paragraph. In an appeal preferred by the applicant, the appellate
Court has maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicant.
Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced
by the prosecution, I am of the view that the learned trial Court as well as
the appellate Court have not committed any illegality of infirmity in
convicting and sentencing the applicant and affirming the conviction and
sentence of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of
IPC.
12. Now, considering the question of sentence, it is noteworthy that the
applicant has faced the criminal trial from 08.01.2010 to 16.11.2011. The
appeal remained pending for about three months, while the present
revision petition has been pending since 07.06.2012. Thus, more than 16
years have elapsed since the commencement of the trial. Considering
the prolonged pendency of the criminal proceedings and the mental
agony suffered by the applicant for all these years, coupled with the fact
that the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 354
of the IPC is six months, and that the applicant has already undergone
imprisonment for about 53 days and deposited the fine amount imposed
upon him, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose
would be served by sending the applicant back to jail. The period already
undergone by the applicant, along with the prolonged ordeal of the

5
criminal proceedings, would sufficiently meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months
imposed upon the applicant for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC
is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Ordered accordingly.
13. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-
above.
14. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial
court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Abhishek