HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Singie Bench. : Hon‘bie Mr. Justicg Pritinker D§w¢ke criminai Apaegl No. 341 of 1996 Shm Arun Kcchar counsel for The appeikxn’r 5hr! Vaibhav Goverdhan ?cmel Lawyer for The b‘cd'e CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 2 OF THE CGDE OF LRIMINAL PRO€EDURE O R D E R (27. 04. 2010} Present appeq! arises GL5? af The impugned judgment and order dafed 13.02.1996 passed by 1*“ Addi‘rional Sessions Jgdge, Bilaspur in Sessiens Trial No.170/1995 cgnvic‘ring The nccused/appellanf fer ihe offence under Secfians 376, 342 and 324’ of The Indian Penqi Code and sen'reneing him io undergo rigoraus imprisanmem for 30 years, and m pay fine of RsA2,5OO/- u/$ 376 IPC, to underga rigorous imprisonment far six mom‘hs, and Ta pay fine cf Rs.500/— u/S 342 IPC and fo undergo rigorous imprisonment for Two years, and To pay fine af Rs.2000/- u/s 3240f the 1mm Penal Code pius default - stipuioiions. 2. Case of fhe prosecution in brief is ihcif on 5.12.1994 on The basis of informmion,beho‘ii Naiishi ExeP-l was recorded of oboui 8.30 pm and based on Thai on inesarne day a? about 8.55 pm ~F.I.R. (EXP—25) was regisiered againsf fhe accused/appeiiant for The offence punishabie under Sections 342, 394, 397, 376 (Ki 506 par; El read. wiih Secfion 34 of The i ’ Endian Penal Code. r i APPELLANT Arun @ Euddoo @ Uday Bhaskgr Accused born Versus RESPONDENT STm‘e of Madhya Pradesh “ Chhafhsgor‘h) As per The case cf fhe pmsgwfion on 5.12.1994 m‘ about 4 pm when the prosecutrix, who had pledged certain ornaments , with Theaccused/appgllant, had gene To coiied The. same, the m‘o‘rher of’The accused/appaiiam had asked her To 90%0 The house near Ci‘fy Dispensary. If is aiieged ’rhaT “the prosecui'rix waited in ihe said housefor abouf one haur and wheh she was returning,_jhe accusedz’appeiian’r siapped her and Teak her inside the ream, snatched her ornamen'is and The inlaich and/ after Tying her wiih fhe rope, assauifing’ her and fhen committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She has aileged That while going the accused/appeiiant .bah‘ed the mom .from outside and when she raised an alarm, cer‘rain persons inciu’ding ‘Arun Mishra, Town Inspector (PW-16) opened the door and then the incident was reported. > 3 So as to hold to accused/appellant guilty,’pro'secution has examined as many as 16 witnessesin support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also’r‘ecorded under Section 3‘13 of the. Code of Criminal ProcedLire in which he denied the chargesJevelied against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. By the impugned judgment, the accused/appellant has ‘ been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 394,392, 506 (paw B) and 397 of lhexndian Penal Code hm has been convicted for the offences under Sections 376, 342 and r324 of the Indian Pencil Code. 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 i, l l ,/ Ne. impugned judgment and wauld ggnfing his grgumam To Thg sen'tencg part thereof only. According To him, at fhe Time cf commission of offence The accused appeilcmf was caed about 22 year's and now is coed abu'r 38 years Is a mar-med man and has family responsuoilmes He submiTs ThaT appellanzl: has ‘ Laireqdy remained In Jaii for abouf 5 year's and 11 month; meldenf is said To have Taken place abou? 16 years back no useful purpose would be served In sending him To Jail and i1 ' would be in The im‘er‘esf of ,Jus’rice if The senTence Imposed on him is reduced To The period already undergone by him. ‘ ?. On The oTher hand, counsel for The SToTe supporTing The _ impugned judgmenT submiTs ThaT The manner in which prosecuTrix has been roped, shows The menToliTy of‘ The l occused/oppellanT and, Therefore, no leniency should be shown To him. 8. In view of above, The appeal is LparTly allowed. The convicTion and senTence awarded To The appeilanT under SecTion 342 (Si 324 IPC are hereby mainTained. As appellanT is reporTed To have remained in‘ jail for abouT 5 years and 1i monThs, incidenT is said To have Taken place abouT 16 years back, senTence of 10 years rigorous imprisonmenT for The offence under SecTion 376 IPC is reduced To 7 years. The appellanT shall be enTiTled To seT ’off and he shall alsobe enTiTled To any legal remission permissible in law for having ’lalready servedvThe above senTence or imprisonmenT. The order of running The senTences concurrenTly is also Confirmed. Sd/- 9. Pritinker Diwakerrwgl Appeal Thus parTly succeeds. l ‘ - ' 7 Judge