CF0000058427 ii ‘ l . ....... IHHIH lllllllHHlflmlllll IN ‘IHE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABAL?UR CRIMINAL APPEAL No K C 3 /95, '%i@ m gm Aggellagm - t -.="bh<’a , 1r). uw/ n Pu rAV 1 =on of santlpurl ‘V .' ‘ Ggswami aged 25 yeéirs resident 5f Baasara policé Station Hirri, Distt ‘Bilaspur MaP. ~==— VEfSlg$ - V Responéent; State of MaP. ConVJ. htlon . Sen henc§ A. .u y-.. n- _._.~_w ¢,,,_ ton-o u/s 311 ) (11) R.I for six mon-hs and \ mcheduls caste and Schcdule nine cf Rs 200/. 1n Act lbe 1989. ‘Lzxwomties & Prevention ) ( default F “ins 5.1. far x) months . under section 354 IPE’ R.I‘;’fér six months. l’ Q f)? unaer sec‘tion 323° V I LEPC- pins of'RS 3007.; in dEfault of fihe S.I» fax? 3 'mon'ths .. All sentence to run ccncurrently. CRLuI‘mL “yuan um,“ mCTxgN 3Z4 g 2 CR g --Wmw‘wnn~:w‘mm‘ §rmnMmwr iz E HIGH COURT OF CHHATUSGARH AT BILASPUR Smgie Bench Hon ble Mr Justice Pm‘rmker iwakW i g ' Crammai Appeal? No 1605 0f 1995 5hr! AJQy Mishm coun<el fer fhe appeilmf V g 5hr! Praveen Da< Dy A far ‘rhe respandenf/S’rate. CRIMINAL AWEAL UNDER SECTION 374 g2} OF THE CODE O CRIMENAL PROCEDURE A , JUDGEMENT (25.04.2011) .- v This appeal is direcfad againsf fhe impugned Judgmem‘ and order dafed 17.11.1995 passed by Speciai Judge, Biiasnur in Spacim Cr'imi'm! Case No‘ 18/93 canvic’ring fhe accused/appelian? for fha offerices punishable under- SecTions 354 and 323 of fhe Indian Pena§ x. g Cocfecmd Section 3£1){§<i) of The Scheduied Cos‘res ($1 Scheduied Tribe (Prevem‘ion af Afrocifies) Ac? (fov Show? “the Acf") and senfencing him fo underga :Hgomus :mpmsonmen‘r fur ax mom‘hs u/S 354 pay f.ne cf Ps 300 u/S 3Z3 IPF and maomus zmprisoz'iht’n'? far Six monfhs and pay fine 9f Q5 200 u/Q 3 (1){><I) of The ACT pius defauh‘ sf§pulafions Ad ‘the senfer-ces were ordar‘ed ‘10 run c0ncurren+iy Fads of The case m tirief aroma? on 14 111992 ofobouf 2 p m ‘1 k i 2 I FI R (Ex 13-23 was {edged by The presecufmx {?W—2) aHegmg m n‘ r» cn‘ a? cuoouT 4 20 am when she was ramming affer' affendmg The n ures cod! accused/appeikm‘? wgs sfavdirg m fmrr? or his house he w A. A } fr e herseif from We clumbes of +he acmsed/cxppaiianf She has ’ '1 ca 9h? haid o. her and asked for SPxucé 1‘avour' If is alieged Tho? The ’ used/appelmm puiied hm” mo his muse bu? shv could manage To I D yPELLANT Tribhuwan Puri, s/o San’ripur'i Versus RESPONDENT- The STm‘enf Madhya Pradesh (naw Cé) further sm‘ted fha‘r after reaching homg, sha narmfed fhe emire injcicienf To her husband and when hgr' hLisbcmd hm gone To The muse 01$ The accused/airspaiaaf making enquiry abnuf fhe incigdenf, ha 1’00 wgis beaten by Thaaccusedfcppeihm. Based on This Fl‘R, offence u der Section 354 0f “(he Indian Pemi Ccide was regis’tered againsf ”r e accusad/appamwr. Af‘ha-r cgmgwméan af ins/estigafrion, Mafia)? was fi ed by the peiice on 812.1992 uncier Sac‘réms 354, 323, 341 of fhe I ‘dicm Penai (fade and Ses‘rion 3 (1) (xi) of ”rhe ACT. 3’ «‘50 as TO mid The accused/appdiam guiify, grosecufion has: e>‘<amined as many as $3): wimesses in supperf 0f if$ case. STcTemen’r of Tha arcuspdiiaggfje W1? was nisa recorded undar; gecTi Jr; 313 af fhP Cdd? 0f Cmmmaa Procedure m whwh he denu’d Th? marge$ lava! d agamsn‘ hm am mmded his mmcenre and fa se impiica’rmn m The: i I ; } i I CGSE 1 4., Affer heariag we pam‘ies mg Trial Cam“? has coavided and semenced The, accusad/appdéan? for The offenaes as menidoned abova Hema This appeai. I \ J 5. Ccunse! far The apgeémn? submifs fhaf he §s now” pre$sing this awed as far as rt remes +0 canvw‘l'mw 0f Th0 accuseé/appeign? der Secfmns 354 and 323 OT the Tndlcm Pena! Cgde ané would ccnfme her argumen? Ti: we senfenca par? Therem? amy, He fur-fider submifs #ha’r as we appeilam“ has aéready ramained in vim} far cbeu’r five days and Tha irciden‘? fock 95am abmrf ninefeen years back, no usefu! purpese. wcauid. be served in sending him m jail and if wouid be m fhe inTeresT of ju§TTca if sentenca impased 0n him for fhe offences under Sacfians 354 and 323 af thrav'lndiahPenai Cede is reduced to The periaci aéready urgdeargone by him in respecf 9f me affence under Sewim 3(1)(xi) of fha Ac’r, éf has been argued irhai‘ Triere is no ai§ggafion made by The. prosecufrix Tho? The aHeged acT AW was done by The aacused/apgseiiam because she bebngs To a particular cas‘te He fuMher' submi‘%s 'Fhm' eifher in ?he FI R cm in fhe court s‘m'l'emem of The pros¢cufmx there is n9 memqon of The asfe of The prosacufmx He alse submw That fher-a is m ocumenfar‘y evxdenre an record fa haw Thm‘ fhe casfe cf “the omphmonf was 5nnd whirh :4 sme qua mm? for bmhmng home Thu? c I a l i Giffgnce under M') prawsmns 0f ‘fke cspermi Ar+ I+ has aEso been a 1 rgued +hm‘ even m Va smTPwew r?rarded unciaer' Sermm 313 Cr i ff 3h? accuwd/app?!1cn+ nr sum qued‘ien was pm‘ fa fhe cused/appa rmf m ragged m‘ +ho ram‘e of +§~e pm<ecufmx ‘ ‘ a \ l \ é On The wher‘ hand, counsei for fhe Sfm‘e fairiy admi‘?s Tha’r There is no allegm‘ien whm‘seevzr by The presacufr‘ix or any 0f The ’ wifnesses for bringing hcma fhe offence under The. provisigns of fhe Special AcT. He fum‘her‘ admi’rs 1mg? Thar-e is m documen‘r on record l Tfo show fha? fhe prosecufr‘ix beiongs 4m Scheduied Casfe or Schedui‘ed Tribe cafeoor‘y. Tn reaper‘r of The offences under Secfions 354 and 373 of me IHdmn Pena’ rode s’m'te coumei submifs fhm a? Si asf fhe fme amount may be enhanced agams’r The appeliam‘ l\ I have heard counsel for fhe parhe< and perused The meTemal vadabie on record including JudamenT Impugned‘h D# ;I 8. From The eVidence of The wiTnesses iT is dear ThoT There is no a‘HegaTion by The prosecuTr‘ix ThoT The oiiegedocT was done by The oheused/oppellanT because she belongs To o porTicuior' cosTe Record furTher‘ shows ThoT either m The F I R or m The courT sToTemenT a; The prosecuTmx There ls no men‘hon of her- cosTe Fur'Thermor'e There gs no documenTory ewdence on record To show The cosTe of The compioinonT os 60nd which is sine (7w none for bringing home The offence under The provisions of The Special ACT and, Therefore, €-) canvicfion of fhe accused/appellanf under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Acf i is set aside and he is aoquitted of the said charge. The fine amount as regards fhis offence shcd! be refunded, if dewsifed by ‘ihe accused/appgHant 9. As regards convictian of fhé accused/appellanf under Sections 354 and 323 of The Indian Penal Code is concerned, The same is mainmined as if has no‘i been chaiienged before This Court. So far as senfence par’r is cancerred ihe appeiian’r has aiready remained m Jail for abouT five aim/s The maiden? fook place abou’r mnefeen years back m The fads and Circumstances of The case fhe aaii sentence imposed upon him under these sechcns is reduced to ihe period aiready undergone by him. However, it; ‘ieu thereof, appeiion‘r is directed to pay Rs, 5,000/— as compensation to the prosecutrix» (PW-2) under Section 357 of the Code of Criminoi Prooedure. This amount shoil be deposited by the oppeilont before the trio! Court i within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order which would be payobie to the prosecutrix (PW-2). Failure, if any, in depositing the amount before the trio! Court within the period stipulated, would make the appellant iiabie to be inside the jail for a period of twor'months‘frigorous imprisonment. a 12. Appeai thus partiy succeeds, ‘ - '59