\ // ||||llJHilllHl|||||||Il|m”Ill F000006301 7 ‘ Crimina‘ l We Bench IIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUE M.P. v CRJMINAL APPEAL No5. (H OF 2000. > \ APPEAL UNDER sEcTIoN 37% 2) OF Tm CRJMINAL pmCEmRE gcomu in unaer section 451 Lac. /€Yeazs’ 3.x. under Section 354 I.p.c. 2 years R. . Unaer Section 366 I.?.C. 7 years R.Lf‘y APPELLANF sommm $nof 1'9 J m JAIL) Ran aSag = u f aged 25 years,/resi dent of D village Latabod,P011ce station District mrg M.P. $ , Balod. , VERSUS iREspounEm .. / SrATE OP M.PV.: Thmfzgy Felice Station Balod, District DJrg, M.P. mWICTION. \ . SEMENCE. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT 8ILA5PUR Single Bench = Hon‘ble Mr. jusfice Pri'rinker Diwaker Criminal Appeal Na. 587 of 26% Sohan La] son of Shri Ram Pmsasd RPELLANT A Versus Smfe mi Madhya Pmdesh (now Chhuf‘risgar‘h) Shri Vishnu Koshm, counsel for The appelan‘f. Shri Neemj Meh‘ra PL for the ‘r‘espondenT/Sfafe RIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTI¢N 374 (2) OF THE CODE 6F V .. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EsPONDENT R 1 t I JUDGMENT (31012011) Th1s appeql Is directed agams‘r The Impugned Judgmem and order dared 2512000 passed by Addmonai Sessions Judge, Balod, Disfmcf Dur‘g m Sessmns Trial No. 281/1999 convicTing The accused/appellqnf under SecTions 451, 354 and 366 of fhe Indian Pena! Code and sen’rencing him 1'o undergo rioorous imprisonment for, info year‘s'u/S 451 IPC, rigoroue injxpr'isonmenf for mo years u/S 354 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years u/S 366 of The IndianPena! Code. 2i Brief fac‘rs of j’he case are 'rha‘l' on 30.061999 a? abouf 0:5 hours F.I.R. (EXP-1) was iodged by Charan (PW-3)- husband of The prosequfrix alleging fha‘r on fhe previous day of abou‘r 9130 pm 'lhe accused/appellanf offer em‘ering his house dragged his Wife - prosecufrix (PW-2) To his house and Thus commn‘fed The offence under Sec‘hons 451 and 354 of ‘i‘he Indian Penal Code. Affer invesfigqfioni chaJ/an was filed on 5.7.1999 under Seci'ion 451,354 and 366 of ihe Indian Penal .Code. i C . } { 3. So as To ho!d To accused/appellan‘r guii‘ry, prosegufion has exafnined 04 wifnesses in suppor’r of (ifs age. S’mfemem of +hebccused/appellanf was also recorded under Secfion 313 of fhe Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied fhe charge ievejled agains‘i him rand pleaded his innocence and false implica’rion in ‘lhe case. 4. Af'l'er hearing The parfies The Trial Cour-T has convicTed and senTenced The accused/adpellanT for The offences as merlTioned above. Hence This appeal. l a: 5. l Counsel for The accused/appellanT submiTs ThaT as There is ncl) allega'l'ion againsT The accused/appellanT for kidnapping or abdacTing or inducing The prosecuTrix To compel her marriage, i offeince under SeCTion 366-of The Indian Penal Code is noT l l made OUT. He submiTs ThaT in relaTion To The offences under SeciTions 451 and 354 of The Indian Penal Code, he is noT pressing This appeal on meriTs and as The appellanT has already remained in jail for abouT 5 monfhs, The senTence im posed upon him may be reduced To The period already undergone by him. 6. On The oTher hand, counsel for The STaTe/respondenT submiTs ThaT offence under SecTion 366 IPC is noT made ouT againsT The accused/appellant H0wever, he submiTs ThaT for The daring acT of The appellanT, no leniency may be shown To him while imposing punishmenT under SecTion 451 and 354 of ' The? Indian Penal Code. g. 1 I have heard counsel for The parTies and perused Th maTerial available on record including judgmenT impugned. 8. ProsecuTrix (PW-2) has sTaTed in her evidence ThaT on The daTe of incidenT aT abouT 10 pm. accused/appellanT had e en‘rered her house and desprre her profesf Took her +0 his house and affer' heamng her cmes Hernia! Sahu (PW—4) rescued her“ and ‘fhen she was Taken To her house and Thereaf‘rer‘ The repor‘r was lodged. 1n her‘ cross-examincn'ion, she has stated Thaw‘f her' husband and mother of The accused/appellanT used‘To I dou‘bT her characTer' by saying ThaT she is having iHiciT r-eiaTion wiT The accused/appelian‘r. Hemlai Sahu (PW-4) has supporTed The case of The prosecuTion saying ThaT he saw The accused/appellanT dragging The prosecuTr-ix To his house and. iT is he who rescued her Charon (PW-3) has aiso supporTed The prosecuTion case and has sTaTed ThaT on The daTe of maidenT acoused/appeiiam: came To his house and Took his Wife by 'draigging To his house and when he Tried To inTervene, he was pushed and as he was sick, he could noT do anyThing buT offer The inTervenTion of one Hemlal Sahu (PW-4) his wife could be rescued. RP. AgnihoTri (PW-1) Ass‘isTanT Sub InspecTor has recorded The F.I.R. (Ex. P—1)_. 3 9. Minu’re examinaTion of The wiTnesses refiecTs ThaT The prosecuTion has uTTeriy failed To prove The case under SecTion 366 of The Indian Penal Code againsT The accused/appellant and, Therefore, he is acquiTTed of The said charge. As regards The offences under SecTions 451 and 354 of The Indian Penal Code, on The basis of The maTeriaI collecTed by The prosecuTion convicTion under These secTions is jusT and proper. Moreover, counsel for The oppellanT has already submiTTed ThaT he is noT spressing This appeal in relaTion To The convicTion of The accused/appellanT under SecTions 4‘51 and 354 of The Indian Penal Code and, Therefore, convicTion under These Two secTions is; moinTained. i ‘ix‘ i \ i \, mealgbj l i 10 In View of above, impugned Judgmem‘ as regards- coni‘vicfion under Sectian 366 IPC ‘is se'r aside and The l acc§Jsed/appeHan1' is acquih‘ed of the said charge. Hcwever', as regards offence under Secficns 451 and 354 IPC, keeping in i vieilll The faci ihaf now fhe appeilanf is middie aged person, has fa ‘iiy responsibiiiiy, incideni' ’rook place abouf 11 years back and he has aiready remained in Jail for abouf 5 manfhs and ihefhefor’e, his senfence is reduced To The period air-eady \w I undgergone by him. g a f 11. ' i i i i l i l i i i Appeal is J‘hus partly allowed. \\: , Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker ‘ a l Judge £