CF0000060046 Criminal. Appeal No '^/l 99^'"S'e Sench (G-lff);:..H App^LLANT. pranay Kumar Damle, S/o Kaidu Damle, Agec3 20 years, R/o Vlllsge'i/ehood Manchadoor, P«S. Ambagarh Choivki Dlstt Rajnsndgaon Vers'u, ^tfg A^i^- z~ ?'....•?.»^»<i ^AR. RESPCN3ENTS/ NCN APPESLANT ^Qsvic'ncsv v/t 376/511 IFC State of chye pradesh 'Throagh police Station nmbagarh Chowki Rajnandg^on Aggrieved by a Judgement datea 9.12.98 passed bv Learned Sessiohs Judae in S.T. No 81/98 SEWTENCE 3 years R l and f.ine of Rs 500/-^VJ7e<^^'Z-/', CRIMXKA'L APPEAL UNBER SECTION 374 OF Cr P C 1973 HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUFI (Hon. Mr. JusticePritinker Diwaker) Cfiminal AppealNo. 2980 Of 1998 AFFELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Pranay Kumar Damle Stateof Madhya Pradesh Shri R.S. Patel counsel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Sharma PLforthe respondent/State. GFillVIINAL APPEAL UNE)ERSECTION374 OF THE CODE OF CRINIINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGNIENT (04.02.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.12.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, RajnandgaOh in Sessions Trial No. 81/1998 Convicting the accused/appgllant underSection 376/511 ofthe Indiah Penal Code and sentencirig him to undergo rigorous innprisonmenf for three years and pay fine 6f Rs. 500 in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment forone month. 2. Case ofthe prosecutionin brief is thaton 26.11.1997 FIREx. P-1 was lodged by the prosecutrix alleging that on 22.11.1997 at about 1 p.m. when she was going to the house of her maternal uncle, accused/appellant met her on the way, took her to the house 6f one Deen Dayal andcommitted forcible sexual intercourse with her. Aftercompletion of the investigation, challan was filed by the policeon 23.12.1997 underSection376/511 IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution tias exarnined 19 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded undersection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implicatiori in the case. tSKAtaii.u^^Hi^i^Blt.TOt^. ,„. ..pf"tes-^ -^a^, ~~<fcj, tf'" "* 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sehtenced the aGCUsed/appellant as meritioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. According to the counsel for the accused/appellaftt the prosecutrix has stated in hercourt statementthat merely an attempt to rape was made by the accused/appellant and for this reason only the accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 376/511 in stead of Section 376 IPC. He however submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the judgment impugned and would confine his arguments to the sentenGe part thereof only. He submits that the appellant has married the prosecutrix on 6.4.2002 before the District Marriage Officer, Rajnandgaon, that they areleading a happy married life and that out of the wedlock the couple is having two children. Me submits that an affidavit to this effect has also been sworn by the prosecutrix and the appellant and fhe marriage certificate ofthe accusedwith the prosecutrix has also been filed by him along with an application under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that in view of the subsequent developments, no useful purpose would be served in again sending the accused/appellant to jail because by doing so their entire married life would be shattered. He submits that the accused/appellant has already remained in jail for about 7 days. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submitsthat the application filed by the parties under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable as the offence under Section 376/511 IPC is not a compoundable one. However, according to him, the impact of the said application may be considered bythis Court. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the accused/appellant ynder Section 376/511 IPC is maintained. However, considering the fact that the appellant has already remained in jail for aboutseven days, that he has marriedlthe »,.;'.??s'!-> ^-^ 1 prdsecutrix on 6.4.2002, that they areliving a happy married life, fhat out of the wedlock they are having two children and that they have filed an application under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permissionto compromise fhe offence, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that itwould be in the ihterest df justice ifthe sentence imposed on the accused/appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Order accordingly. 9. Appeal thus partly allowed. Sd/- . Pritinker Diwaker Judge ;'?\r>