CF0000060940 IN THE HIGH COJ.RT OF MADHYA PRADESH"M JABA:LPUR. CR.A.HO^c-^^ OF 1996 ' - Ramktjmar,- alias . Patalus&ngh ^ age d about ^'€(oW^^^L^I ^y^ 20 years/resiaerrt of Ramkund^PS Sareswati Nagar^Raipur^H^P^ ^^^ APPELLANT ACOJSED IN JAIL VERSUS 1<he State of M.P» through PS ;Sarswati Nagar/Raipur, »«< NONAPPLICANTS. CRIMINAL APPEAL .UNDER SECTION 374 CO'DE OE CRIMINAL PROCEDUN r ^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON*BLB MR. JUSTICE PRITIBiKBR DIWAKBR CR.A._||0.,3.009_OF_l98>6 APPBLLANT Ramkumar @ Patalusiagh versus RB8PONDBNT State of Madhya Pradesh Shn A.K.Prasad, co'uiisel for tb.e appeUant, Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, P.L. for the State. APPBAL UNDBR SBCTIOli 374 OF THB CmMINAL PROCBDUSSB CODB . JUDGMENT 1-17.02.20121 This appeal is directed agamst fhe judgxn-eiit aiid order dated 5.5.96 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge Raipur/;ia S,T. No, 378/1995 convictiag the accused/appellaiit zixider Secti-on 376/511 of fhe Iiidiao. Penal Code aiid seatencio.g him to undergo rigorous miprisonxaent for five years. 2. Pacts of fhe case in brief are that on 31.7.95, FIR {Ex.P/3) was lodged by prosecutiribCy a iniaor girl aged about 10 years aUegiag that a day before fhereto, at about 11.00 p,iii, when she had gone to attend the caU of nature, accused/appellant reached there and coiiunitted forcible sexual iatercourse wifh her. Based on this FIRy offence under Section 376 IPC was registered against the aceused/appeUaQt. After iavestigation, chatlan was filed on 9.9.95. 3, So as to hold fbe accused/appeUaat guilty, the prosecution has examiaed 06 witnesses, Statement ofttte accused/appeUant was also recorded uuder Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. m which he denied the charges leveUed agaiast hioi aad pleaded his innocence aiid false implication ia fhe case. 4, After hearmg counsel for the parties, the trial Judge has acquitted fhe accused/ appellaat under Section 376 IPC but convicted him zuxder Section 376/511 offhe Indian Penal Code and has given r%.. ^t^ 1 ^-Jf/ categorical finding that m view of fhe medical report of the prosecutrix, where ftie hyraen was foiHid iatact and no mjujy was found on fhe private part, offence under Section 376 IPC is not niade out agamst fhe accused/appellant. Hence fhis appeal. 5. Contention of Shri Prasad, counsel for fhe appeUaut is fhat he is not pressiag fhis appeal 011 nierits and would confine his ai^irment to fhe sentence part thereof only. It has been argued tliat fhe appellaat has reiaained m jail for about one and half years; fhe incident had taken place aboiit 17 years back; at tihie x^levant tirae Ixe was aged about 20 years and now he m aged about 37 years, havisxg settfed in his family, no useftil purpose would be served ia agaiu sendmg him to jail, fherefore, it would be ia the mterest ofjustice if fhe sentence imposed on hiai is reduced to fhe period already undergone by hini. He has placed his strong reMance on a decisioii of fbe Supreme Court m the matter of Pcupidfearlnath ys» SteSe of Mahcircstra reported ia (2009) 14 SCC 537. On fhe other hand, State counsel subxnits that no leniency be showu to the accused/appeUantwhile iaiposnig fhe sentence, 6. Considering titie pecuUar facts aad circunistaBces of tihie case aad tlie subiaission as inade by counsel for the appeUant, his convictioxi under Section 376/511 IPC is raamtained. So f©ras the seutence part is conceraed., the appeUajcit has reiaahned in. jail for about one aad halfyear; fhe mcident had taken place about 17 years back; at fhe relevant tiine he was aged about 20 years aad now he is aged about 37 years, haviag setfled ixi his fainily, fhis Coixrt is of the view fhat it would be in fhe mterest of justice if the jail sentence miposed on fhe accused^appellaat is reduced to fhe period ah'eady undergone by him by imposmg the fibae amount of Rs. 5,000. This fme aaioiiDt of Rs. 5000 shall be deposited by the appeBa&t beforc fhe trial Court wifhia a period of three xnonffas froiii the date of receipt of copy of fhis order. Failure in doiag so, would niake the appeUant Mable to be inside fhe jail for a furfher period of RI for oiie year, Appeal fhus partly succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge