Apyellant Kym fax;J ReSPondent : S‘Bhh (Cimi‘) *J inge'ec rn ' IN THE HGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUE CnAppeal No. ggg /1992 , I (I E’ancham aged about; Sln §O h yearq q/o Jagmohmu cast Rajpoot ningh rpadence of Vllmge Chhote atomuda Elalgarh. thana Ch2§iradhar Nagar diStxict VerSus / Stgte Of M~P§ / F APIE AL UNDER QECTION 371!- Cr.P C AgainSt the dgted 9th in u‘ spacial Crimiwf Case 319/91 passed by gesuon: judge Raiga rh . \g 3?, 2- ‘»‘;\;‘w,‘L. ’ ‘ e Convic tion /. Sentence E? L \ f : {I/s 35h IPC R.I. ‘one year [:IL HIGH COUKPOF CHHAT’MSGARH A‘T BILASPUR v SB : HON’8L MR. JUSTICE PRITI Kin 'DIW canto. 5571 1992 APPELLANT Pancham Singh VCISIIS REsPONDENT Suats of Madhya Pxwesh Shri Suml Sahu, counsel for the appellant. a - Shri Vivck Shanna, P.L. for the Statc. E A APPLICATION ula 374 or 'rx-m cap. JUDGMENT (22.03.2010) ; This appeal is dimcted against the judgment dawd 9’11 May 1992 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocitigs) Act, Raigarh in Special Criminal Case No. 34/ 1991 coiw‘icting the accused/appellant for the 003nm punishable under Section 354 of the [PC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year: Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 3l.6.9t, FIR EXP/2 was lodged by the complainant (P.W.»2)‘ aged about 21 yeats allrgng in it that when she was allialone in the house accused] appellant entered the &house, caught hold of her and asked for sexual favour to which she tefused and after the arrival of her husband she narrated the entire incident to him and then the report was lodged. 2. 3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined six witnesses. Statement of the accused]appellant.,was also recorded underSection 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the 4. After hearing counsel for the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused] appenant for the oh‘ence as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. ' 5. Heaxd counsel for the partics and perus$ me material available on record including the impugnai judgment. € 7 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pmssing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and wonltl connne his argument to the sentence part thereof only and submits that the appellant is now aged about 50 years, that the incident is» a- said to have taken place in the year 1991 and he h$ already remained in jail for about 5 months and 1 1 days, no I useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail and it t would be in the interest of jusn'ce if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period aheady undergone by him. To this, counsel for the State has no serious'objection. 7. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the judgment is maintained. The incident is alleged to have taken place in the year 1991, appellant is reported to have remained in jail for about 5 months and 11 days and therefore his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker .Eudge ‘t