@r HIGH1COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal meal No.596 of 2007 Narottam Sahu S/o Fulchand Sahu R/o Village Khamtaral, P.S. Arrang Dlstnct Raipur (CG) APPELLANT: (in Jail) Versus RESPONDENT: State‘of Chhattisgarh‘ Through PS Mandir Hasid, District Raipur, (CG) Present Shri Sunli Sahu With Shrl Rajendra Tripathl counsel for the appellant Shrl Ashish Gupta Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent Single Bench:.HOn’ble Shri .Pritinker Diwaker J U D G M E'N T (Li-e201 1) > The followrng Judgment of the Court was delivered by Prltlnker Diwaker, . 1. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and order dated 31 1-2007 passed by the 7‘“ Additional Sessmns Judge Raipur in ST No 112/2005 conVIcting the accused/appellant under Section 376 (2)(f) ofthe IPC and sentencmg him to undergo R i for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs 1 000/ in default of payment of fne to further undergo R l; for 6 months . Briefly stated facts of the case-are that’gn 21—12—2004 FIR (Ex.—P/2) waslodged by the prosecutrix (PW-‘2), aged about 11 years alleging therein that‘onr.19-12-2004 when she had gorie to participate in the School Sports Meet, the accused/appellant reached there, offered her breakfast and took her to a nearbyv'room and committed forceful sexual intercourse against her wishes. Based on this report, offence under Section 376 of the IPC was registered against the appellant. J . After investation, chiian was fiied on 21—2-2005 by the police under ig a Section 37 ofth C. 6 e IP So as to hold the accused/apllant guiy, the prosecution has i pe it med n s exain 21 witesses. Statement of the accused/appeliaht was alo recorde‘unde Stion 31 of the Cr.P.. n which he eniedithe dr ec 3 C i d aterial apearin ‘against him in the prosecutio evidence and m pg n pleded nnocence and false implication. a i . er hearing learne counse for the resctive parties/the trl Court , Aft d l pe ia convict and seneced the acud/appellant a mentiod aove: ed tn cse s ne b . The prosecurix was examined as — PW—19 Dr. rasanna Sing s t PW2. P h i \ the dilogis and accordin to ossication test conducte by him, Raot g fi d gof h t 0 Dr N aev te prosecurix was in between 9—12 years. PW-2 . idhi pta had mdically examind the prosutrix vide reort Ex.-P/22 n likewise, P21 Dr. Neela Khe had also examined t ad W- umar he prosecutri vide report Ex.-P/23. Both e doctors have opied that the x th n prosecutri was sbjectd fCefu sexual intrcourse. . x ue to ori e . entio of Shr Sul Sahu and S Rajendra ripathi, leae counsel apearing o‘behalf of the appellan, is that the ppellant s b -04 thu een in jail since 2912-20 and s he has already completed sentence of about 6 ears ad ‘6 onth They frther submit that they y n ms. u t ng eal its a fn are no pressi the app on mer nd would conie their ‘ argument to the. sentence part thereof only. lt has been argued that the appellant is HIV positive and his condition is deteriorating day by day; Learned counsel have filed documents to this effect. Lastly, they submit that in the circumstances, his sentence may be reduced from Gu e e ec p Contn i ni hri T rnd p n t a ha 1O years to 7 years or he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has also verified the above fact and he fairly admits that the accused/appellant is HIV positive and is being treated in the jail. He, however, submits that at least minimum sentence of 7 years may be imposed on the appellant. 9. Considering the submissions as made by respective counsel, in particular the fact that the appellant is HIV positive, this Court feels that there are adequate and special reasons to reduce the jail sentence of the accused/appellant from 10 years to that of 7 years. 10. in the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction imposed upon the appellant under Section 376 (2)(f) of the IPC is hereby maintained. However, the appellant is sentenced to undergo R.l. for 7 years and he be set at liberty immediately after completing the jail sentence of 7 years, unless required to be detained in any other case. Barve