XI-HC—7! ^T'^T 9R^t'::R | S' "3ssS9^ ' •3=55f ^jl^l^, ($Tiiyie, |si01'M^'t an^r TR% Ciw^??) •FSiRK^feait^ qiplferih 'WRft'^fS^ ^3R$R HIOH COURT OF cAHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APfEAL N0.1821 of 2000 APPELL^NTS (IN JAIL) RESPONDENT Present: Mrs. Kiran Jain, couns< Mr. Neeraj Mehta, PL f< ORALt Dhirendra Mishra, J This criminal appeal conviction and order of sente in Sessions Trial No. 273/97 Judge, Kanker has convic 1. Suklal S/ o Vishal Singh Aged about22 years, R/o Village Silpat P.S. Durgkondal, District Kanker, M.P. 2. Sagnuoo S/o Vanshram aged about 32 years, By occupation Cultivator, Resident ofVillage Silpat, P.S. Durgkondal, -District Kanker, M.P. ERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Police Stafion Durgkondal, District Kanker, M.P. 1 for the appellant. ir the State/respondent. JUDGMENT 1.08.2007) ^ directed against the judgment of ^ce dated 1st September 1999 passed ^vhereby leamed Additional Sessions jed the appellants under Section 33-HC—78 3=5er -^) |A| |^-|, yTfl.M'16, fslwltiy ^il^N? IC,^ ^TH^ •gTBIW^EfeS'RS! 2. q'WRii'q.TS'STWl i;aiSg<i 376(2)(g) ofthe IPC and sent^nced each ofthem to undergo R.I. for ten years, pay a fine of Rs. p,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. fo| 2. Case of the prosecudij) ^. about 10.10 p.m. the prose^ kifchen garden when appell^nt Sagnoo caught her hand, gagged her mouth and dragged her 1)1 Suklal. Both of thein draggecjl on the ground and after takii} committed rape on her. The on 17.4.1997 after return oi^ for medieal examination f( Parmeshwarilal (PW-12) exaijained her and gave her report of Ex.P/9A. 3. After completing investij the appellants under Section trial Court relying upon the and her father Puturam (PW-; raedical examination of the p on her private parts, ha accused/appellants as mentio: 4. Learned counsel for th forcible sexual intercourse is c there is no allegation against rape with the prosecutrix an svt months. a in brief is that on 14.4.1997 at jtrix came to close the door of her ;ar his home where he met accused the prosecutrK near a tree, laid her g out her underwear accused Suklal •eport was lodged by the prosecutrK ;r parents. The prosecytrix was sent P.H.C, Durgukondal where Dr. ;ation charge sheet was filed against |376(2)(g) of the IPC and the learned |tatements of the prosecutrix (PW-4) as also considering the fact that on -osecutrK fresh injuries were found b convicted and sentenced the ijied in paragraph 1 of this judgment. [appellant submits that allegation of 'tily against appellant Suklal whereas ^.ppellant Sagnoo that he committed the only allegation against him is E2-HC—7S 3^r ^ii^i^, ($^y'i<»,tsj^iyy k ^^ ^_* s^"> ^gRR'aitg sii^t '*]^i<'i41-i UM^ tf fs^t' ^affOTai^g that he accompanied.Suklal |and gagged the prosecutrix by closing her mouth with his hand. She further submits that main accused Suklal has already been re^leased from jail after undergoing the sentence imposed on him,,an| date ofjudgment i.e. 1st Sep1j in jail during trial from 22.4| already conipleted nine yej circumstances, taking into appellant Sagnoo, the senten^ the sentence already undergo| 5. On the other hand, leatjned counsel for the State/respondent supports impugned judgmen not dispute that the appellan years'jail sentence dll date. 6. I have heard learned c the impugned judgment as als 7. The offence has been about 13 years. She has catei from her home to a nearby pl sexual intereourse with her participated in assisdng the £ statement of the prosecutrix her father Puturam (PW-5) in turn narrated the same appellant Sagnoo is in jail since the ;mber 1999 till date and he was also 1997 to 21.5.1998 and thus, he has irs of jail sentence and in these sonsideration the role attributed to ;e imposed on him may be reduced to by him. of the trial court. However, he does No.2 Sagnoo has already served nine ^unsel for the appellant and perused [o the evidence on record. |committed with a prosecutrix aged ^orically stated fhat she was dragged fece where accused Suklal committed whereas accused Sagnoo actively ^ccused in committing the rape. The ]is corroborated by the statement of fyho has also stated that after his return his daughter had narr^ted the incident to her mother, who J3 him. Puturam (PW-5) is also a 32-HC. <^\ -s^st ^roioCT, SxfttFre, tsio'iiyy ^rfypJtq WW?'?.ft^t i? aira'fl sni^i Vl'^fWa ???^Ig?^T?^ 1 witness of the fact that appellant Sagnoo had confessed before the Panchayat regarding commi^sion of offence. The statements of these witnesses-are duly coijroborated by the statement of PW-12 Dr. Parmeshwarilal who afl^sr examination found fresh injuries over private parts of th6 pj-osecutrix. Thus, from the evidence available on record, the offerlce under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC against the appellants is esta]3lished. 8. However, taking into cc^ against appellant No. 2 that intercourse with the prosecul nsideration that there is no allegation [ie, in fact, committed forcible sexual [rix and also considecing that he has already undergone nine year^' jail sentence, ends ofjustice would be served if while -maintaini4g conviction of the appellant No. 2 under Secdon 376(2)(g) of th^ IPC, the jail sentence imposed on him is reduced the extent alre^.dly undergone by him. 9. In the result, the apt>eal of appellant No. 1 Suklal is dismissed and that of appellaijit No.2 Sagnoo partly succeeds. His conviction under Section 3'i|'6(2)(g) of the IPC is maintained. However, sentence imposed 01)1 him is reduced froin 10 years' R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/- to thej period already undergone by him. He be set at liberty forthwith, ifnot required in any other case. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge