'HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 384/ 2006 APPEILANT . Gopal Singh Sjo Shn' Jagdish Singh ACCUSED (IN JAIL) aged about 26 yrs, Electu'cian, R/o Chandrashekher Azad Nagar Devarikhurd PS TOIWa Distt. Bilaspur C.G.. VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Through PS Toma Distt. Bilaspur C.G.. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374{2) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973. » {SE :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present : Shri-Avinash Chandra Sahu, Advocate on behalf ofthe Shri Gautam ‘- Khetrapal, Advocate for the appellanh Shri Rgkesh Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondent. ORAL-ORDER (Passed on 28/ 07/ 2008) ¥ 1‘ This appea! is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/3/2006 passed by .Founh Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in ST. Ne; 182/2005 whereby learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur has upheld the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376, (2F) r/w 511, 377 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, 5 x years, 5 years, 3 years and nne of Rs. 2,0001— 5000/-, 5000l- & 3000l- , in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 3, 6, 5 and 4 months respectively. 2. The conviction and sentence is challenged on the ground that without credible evidence trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 3‘ 'Shri Avinash Chandra Sahu, Advocate on behalf of the Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Rakesh Jha, Dyt GA for the State are heard. 4, Judgment impugned and record of Courts below perused. 5‘ During the course of argument it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that he is not disputing the conviction and only want to argue on the ground of sentence and it is g .s W was ar w 1 submitted that appellant is poor person not able to pay the excessive fine amount of Rs. t 15,000I— it is dispropionate to thegravity of the offence. 6. On the other hand judgment is supported on behalf of the appellant and it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that trial Court has adequately sentenced the appellant. 7. Counsel for the appellant has not disputed the legality of conviction held by learned Trial Judge moreover on the basiepf First information Report Ex. P-l 4, medical i examination report Ex. P-1 2, ocular statement of victim PW14, Ku. Suruchi aged about 4 years, W1 5, Deobrat Thakur, father Of victim, PW16 Anusuya Bai, mother of the victim, PW‘i Raikumar: PW2 Rajesn and statement of the other witnesses it is established that on 16/41‘2005 between 10.30 pm. to 0.30 am. appellant took out the 4 years aged girl Ku. Suruchi on temple to forest there he tried to commit the rape her and lastly inserted his penis in her mouth. Act of the appellant squarely false, the offence established under Sections 363, 366, 376, (2F) r/w 511, 377 of the lndian Penal Code. After evaluating the evidence available on record learned Trial Court has convicted and: sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 8. lt is argued on behalf of the appellant that appeltant is in custody from 1974/2005 and has completed 3 years and 7 months. He is poor person not in a position to deposit, the fine amount of Rs. 15,000l-. Appellant has been convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376, (2F) r/w 511, 377 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, 5 years, 5 years, 3 years and fine of Rs. 2,000l- 5000/—, 5000/- & 3000l- total fine of Rs. 15,000/—. The substantive sentence of imprisonment has already been awarded to the appellant. He has already served the sentence of 3 years and 7 months. 9. Taking into consideration the substantive, sentences awarded to the appellant, the amount of fine is excessive and it is dispropionate to the gravity of the offences. ln this case tine amount is not a part of compensation. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Convictionris maintained. Substantive sentences awarded to the appellant is also maintained. The tine imposed upon the appellants for the offence punishable under u\ Sections 363, 366, 376, (2F) r/w 511 , 377 of the Indian Penal Code, is Rs. 2,000]; 5600!- , 5000I— & 3000I- total fine of Rs. 15,000/-.‘ The fu%1e amount is modified and awarded Rs. 500k, 500/—, 5OOI—, 500/—, iota! of Rs. 2,000/- in default of fme amount simple I l imprisonment for 1 month foreach default. i . sd/- . 'i ‘i "T.P.sHARMA. Judge i