^ ^°'~ A&pelJQnt Res&ondsnt HI6H •COUR.T OF CHHATri.S^ARH ^T BIL4SPUR Crimind Appeal No< 8 of 1994 Kumari Bai Wife of Abhayaram Nai aged about 33 years R/o Shyam Nagar, Shyam Nagar Poiice Station, Civi! Lines, Raipur, Distt.Raipur (M.P.) (Now C.B) Versus State of AA.P< through Pofice Station Civil Lines, ftaipur (M.P.) (Now C.6.) (CRIMIN.AL APPE.41. UNDER 5ECTION 374 (2) OF THE CObE OF CRIA^INAL PROCEDURE, 1973) (SB: Hon'bleMr.T.P, Sharma, J.) Present'. AA.r< Sunjj Sahu, counse! for the appeifant, Mr^Sonjeev K-Agrawal, Panel lawyer for the State/respondent. OR.4L OROER ^sssed sn 13th ^i^ist, 2QQ9) Thjs appeal is directed against the judgment of conyiction and order of sentence dated 19.11.93 passed by the Fourth AdditionQl Sessions Judge, Raipur, m Sessions Tricil No.182/92 whereby and whereunder learned Fourth AdditionQl Sessions Judge after holding the dppellant guiity for the offence pursishdbie under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code/ convicted and sentenced her to undergo rigorous Jmprisonmc-nt for 1 year< 2, The Judgment is choJlengec! on the ground that without there bein9 an iota of eyidence, the court beiow has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby commitfrecJ an jltegadty. 3, I have heard fearned coim<sel for the partles and perused the judgment impugned and records of the court bebw. 4. At the outset, learned counsei for the applicant submits that he does not want to argue on the question of conviction and he want to argue oniy on the question of sentence and argues that the convictlon Is well founded, but - 2- '^ B/- as regards the question -of sentence is concerned, wife of compjainant Abhayram Nai le< oppe!!ant !<umrl^i Bal who is womon was aged about 32 years at the time of commission of offence in the year 1992 and was m custody from 12,1.92 to 184.92 for about 6 days. Learned counse! also sybmits that after lapse of 17 years, no usefu! purpose wlll be served again sending her to jQi! and sentence of period already undergone along with fine will meet the ends of Justice. . ' ' 5. On 1+»e other hand, judgment impugned is supported on behalf of the State/respondent. 6. Conviction of the Qppellant is well founded and based on the statement of injured Abhayram Naj and other wltnessBS, supported by prompt jodged F.I.R. and medica! evidence. Conyiction is sustainable under the bw. 7. As regards the question of sentence is concerned, admittedly, the appellant is wife of the complainant o.nd at the time of commissjon of offence- her age wds 32 years. After tepse of 17 years, sentence of period already undergone a!ong with fine wiH meet the en.ds of justice re.lyjng upon the case ofp®t@lRaslRlal Becharbhel v. StQt@-'(1992 CrLL..J.23.34 (SQ. 8, Consequentiy/the appea! Is partly albwed< Convlction Is majntalned. However, the sentence of imprisonmentof rigorous imprisonment for 1 year is inodified to 1+ie period already undergone by her and to pay a fine of Rs<2000/", in defau!t of payme.nt of flne, she sha!l undergo rjgorous innprjsonment for 6 months, The appe!lant is directed to deposit the fine amount within 15 doys from today. T.P. Sharma Judge