r‘ N THE HIH 09 m w R I G‘ mm or mam anEsa a JanALPU x 3 ‘ot 1995* 8& f f £pp . ciminal Aeal $0 m1; hacks 1mm“ Jagdish. aged 45 years. scn o Nta. reisident at shanbaa.‘ P.s.G1rij an? unstrict Naland ( et'l\ vs‘$ ‘ epf Madhya Prades}; RIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECrION §74 g2 ) F EiiTc‘ convxcrmn: sENm us 3 f mti f a Bihayu @he 'Sta C OF THE wDE O CRmINAL PROCEDU ‘g97g / 76m 1 12c HEQ§4 €§K§RT $F €HE€A‘E"€E§§&%% &'§‘ gEL§§F$E 1 (Han. Mr. justice Prétmkgr Diwaker} Crimina? Amiga NC“ 883 0f 1995 i ¥§Eii§fw lagaish \ ‘ \ VERSU5 l §RESPGR§E§NT fitate of Madhya Pradesh. 1 .x, i Shri Arun Kacher‘ ccunSeE =‘0r appeuant. S§W§ Vivek Shmum, PL fa?“ 'mE Staté. u . SREMEN£E &§FE&£ wFéE%§R $E€T§E€3M 3“}?4 £2; EEF ‘E‘HE €G§E G? CREMEwAégE‘ 3=Ra€gm§RE ‘ EEJ£§§EVH§NT {27,31,2a313 The present aweai aréses mu: 0f the 3&a‘gment and order dated 29.04.1QgS aassea‘ by 12mm Maitmnag Elegsmns Judge, Raipur En Sessiang Trial Hts. 142j§3 canvictmg the accusedfappe§éant §0r the a?§er‘ece under Sectiam 376,1’311 of IPC and 'sentensmg him ta underga rigamu5 imprisonment fer tWO V8&r$g 12, Brief faets of the case are thee an GS.()2.1992: HR Ex?- ?1 was iodgee‘ by the presecutrix {?W~2} aged abeut 16 years ?a§§eaing in ii the”: e3”: C4.i32.ii~}§2 at abeui‘efg p.m. when she was warking as iabeure? in the muse cf d‘he Gepai $eth; the aecusedjappenant whe was a:se weg‘kéng ae maSen at the same piece threw her on the {‘Seer by catceéng her hand am: made an attempt ta cemmit i‘ercibie sexua‘: mterceurse with her. Based on the FER. cxg‘fehzce uneer Sezéien 3?6i511 a? WC was registered ageinst the eceueedjapeenent and after investigatEon; cheiien was fiiee en Gaazwez for the sairj offence, 3. S59 as to heidVthe accusedjappe%§ant gaé ty: prosecuiion 1 has examined CS witnesses in support of its case. Statement 0f the accused/appeiiant was aiee recorded under sectien 313 ()f the Cscie of Crimina: Pracedure‘in whmh he denied the éharges ieveHed against him and pieaded his innscence and fa‘se impncation in the case, After hear'na the Darties the triai Caurt has convicted enG sentenced the accusea/aanenam as mentmned above Heard counse} fer the parties and perused the material availabie on record including the gudgment impugnee. , 6n e Counsel for the appeii a submits that he Is not presssnc th§s appea§ as far as it reiates ta convictian part OF the impggned juggment and wou§d confine ms‘argument to the sentence pert thereof only. Accordang to him; the incident had taken piace about: :8 years back, that theyeccusee’fappeiiant is now aged about $6 years, that the appeiient has aireaéy remained in jeii fer about one mentn: no usefui purpose weuid be served in sending him to jaii’ and it wouid be in the interest sf iustice if the sentence impeseci on him is reduced ta the peried aireedy undergoneby him, To this: counsei for the State has no serieus objectinn. 7. Accordingiy, the appeal is pertly aiiewed. Cenviction earl: of the imnuaned iudgrhent is maintained, Hewever. ieokina to the pecuiiar facts and c rcumstances of the Ease in Dart cuiar, that the in dent had taken niece about 18 years back the appeiiant has aiready remained in gaii for about ene mentn and he must be now an aged persen and sensing him back to the jaii wouici disturb his entire famiiy, the Jaii sentence imposed an the accusedjappeiiant is reduces t0 the period aiready undergoneJEy him. However, in iieu thereof, the appeiiant is directed to pay a tine of Rs, 1G,.GQG which wouid be payabie to the presecutrix within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. it the fine amount as directed is not deposited in the trial Court within E 4 S he stipuiated period, the &pgé§%ant sha§§ under gs mprisonment for a pericd 0f Qne yeah 8. ppeal uS gartiy succeeds. 1 A th t S