CF0000061 006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUH. CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. \\¥vx OF 1995. ( APPELLANT/IN JAuL. MA UU,a1ias NAmnxxsHoR , So‘n cf‘ Ja'i Narayan Tandan, aged 18 yaars, resldent of‘ Dhancha BhaV§mKurd L I G _02/12u5 p 5. 3amul, Bhllal, mistrict ouRngim.$.). versus xtate 0f Madhya Pradesh , ‘ RESPDNHENT ... Thraugh P.S. Jamul, District Durg, M.P. 9 SENTENCE C UM} ICTIDN / R I. for tuo yEara and f1ne or & zooo/h , 1n default R I. f‘ur five months. caxmxngL APPEAL gEDER SECIEgg;§3352) nF TgE cnngwgg/\\~w ht-...¢——»-; cRgggwAL pancgguRE. ,3 ELK 7%” RkDl_ - a. E S %? -a: 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 08 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case, This apart, two witnesses namely Shiv Balak (Dw-l) and Jai Narayan Tandan (DW-2) have also been examined by the defence in support of its case. ‘ 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court'has acquitted the accused/appellant of the offence under Section 376/511 of IPC but convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 354 of IPC. 5. r Contention of Shri Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the appellant is that even if the entire case is taken as it is, the offence under Section 354 of IPC is' not made out against the accused/appellant. He submits that the pmsecutrix is a very shaky witness; in the FIR and her case diary statement she has stated that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant but in her Court statement she has denied the same and therefore the benefit of doubt sh0uld be extended in favour of the appellant. He further submits that version of the defence has been completely ignored by the court below. Lastly it has been argued that the incident had taken place about 16 years back, at the relevant time the appeliant was a young boy of 18 years, he has already remained in jail for about 16 months, no useful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail and it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. o «.5 :» r u ,3— 6. On the other hand supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by Shri Das, learned counsel for the State that the conviction of the accused/appenant is stricth} in accordance with iaw and there is no infirmity in the same. Heard caunsei for the parties and perused the material avaiiabie on record including the judgment impugned. 7. a 8. Prosecutrix (PW—4) in her court statement has stated that on the date of incident she had gone to the house of the appeiiant to offer Prasad of Hoii. At that time the appeiiant was alone in his house and asked her to keep the Prasad in kitchen, She has stated that when she went to the kitchen, the appellant came there and after removing (her underwear committed bad work with her. After returning home she narrated the entire incident to her mother who thereafter went to the house of the appellant to quarrel with him but the appellant made an attempt to assault her. In paragraph-5, she has stated that after removing her and his undergarments the appellant only kissed her and did not do anything but thereafter she has stated that she was subjected to physical relation by the appellant and then he did not do anything. In paragraph—14 of her cross—examination she has stated that the appellant only kissed her and if the appeiiant had done any bad work with her, she would have informed about the same to her father. Krishnawati Devi (PW-5) and Krishna Prasad (PW-3) mother and father of the prosecutrix have also supported, the statement of the prosecutrix. Dr. Smt. Madhu Shrivastava (PW-6) had medically examined the prosecutrix and given her report vide EXP-8A. According to her, some external injuries were found'on the body of the prosecutrix‘ but her hymen was intact and no internal injury was found on her person. eq— 9, Statement of the prosecutrix which has been duly supported by her parents appears to be quite trustworthy to arrive at the conclusion that the accused/appellant had n‘tade an attempt to outrage her modesty, Nothing has been brought on record to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix and take a view contrary to that of the Court below. 10. Considering the statements of the prosecutrix, her parents and other witnesses this Court is of the opinion that conviction of the appellant under Section 354 of IPC is just and proper, therefore the same is maintained. So far as sentence part of the impugned judgment is concerned, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the incident had taken place 16 years back, .at the relevant time, the appellant was a young boy of 18 years and now he must be aged about 34 years must be having family responsibiiities, he has already remained in jail for about 16 months, jail sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Sentence of fine is however left undisturbed. 11. Appeal thus partly succeeds. em- i i 'Pritinker Diwaker Judge i\“‘e:,,._,_,, i l i \. . ‘l. l i i .