\. '^ »,;'••. } Hi^ ^-..'y fe.Sk -^^ai^e®»» ttfttwa' ^ [^n^^ .^. CF0000057801 •II^S^HIQH GOUm OF MADtrfAFR&DKH AT JABALFUB GBBiIBlL APPSIL Mo ^ tj 4 O'f 199.4 APPSSLLAM' AGCUS® II JAIL B^PO®35Mr. PEJHBAL ^soia of Sakhiram Sahy, aged 27 years, residen-t of pau^jara, P.S.Htai distt. Durg. ve rs a s 2he gtate of M,P. nsr % "^L. '•^1 ^- ^ ^ ,\\ / through the DistrLet Maglstrate,©a^>, .A<S»ocel<B APPS.L umm SSCTIGI 574 GF SHE.CODS OF CBB'IIML PBOCS)UKE BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.05 11:48:45 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHMATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1444 of 1994 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Purbal State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Vivek Sharma, counsel for appellant. Shri Pravin Das, Dy. G.A. for the State. CRIMINALAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (10.01.2011) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 22.10.1994 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 207/1990 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence under Sections450, 354 and 325 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 450, two years u/s 354 & five years u/s 325 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 31.03.1990, FIR Ex. P-12 Was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-2) - a married lady aged about 27 years alleging in it that on that day at about 6.30 p.m. the accused/appellant who is known to her and her family came to her house on the pretext of demanding drinking water and after taking water asked her for sexual favour and upon refusal for the same he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. After commission of offence when he heardthe sound of bicycle bell rung by her husband, he hid himself under the cut and thereafter fled away in the dark. After investigation, Challan was filed against the appellant on 21.04.1999 for the offence under Sections 376 and 325 of IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 ofthe Code of ^ © -.^- Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the accused/appellant of the offence under Section 376 IPC but convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the appellant is aged more than 46 years, that the incident had taken place about 20 years back, that the relations between the accused/appellant and the prosecutrix have become cordial, that the accused/appeltant has already remained in jail for more than three months, no useful purpose would be served in sending him 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. To this, counsel forthe State has no serious objection. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Jail sentence imposed on the accused/appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, in lieu thereof, the appellant is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000 which would be payable to the prosecutrix within a period of five months from today. If the fine amount as directed is not deposited in the trial Court within the stipulated period, the appellant shall under go imprisonment for a period of six months. 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge