?%_ D: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 19990. APPELLANTS Vinod Kumar Soni VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Neeraj Mehta and J.A. Lohani, counsei for appellant. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTI0N 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. J U D G M E N T (5.5.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.02.1990 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 118/1988 convicting the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376/511 and 342 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and one year respectively on each count. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 29.121 987 a written report EXP-3 was lodged by Merry Bano (PW—7) alleging that on 28.12.87 at about 2.30 p.m. the accused/appellant called the prosecutrix to his house and when he was about to commit the offence of rape, after hearing the cries of the prosecutrix her brother reached the spot, forcibly opened the door and saw the accused/appellant lying over the prosecutrix. On the basis of this written report, F.l.R. EXP-4 was registered on 29.1237 for the offences punishable under sections 376/511 and 342 of the l.P.C. After investigation, challan was filed on 08.02.88 under the said sections. W 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the ‘ accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled _.2f against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant 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 submit that they are not pressing ’5 this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine their argument to the sentence part thereof only. It has been argued that the appellant is about 55 years, that the incident had taken place 23 years back, that the prosecutrix has already married somewhere else and is leading a settled life and that the accused/appellant has already remained in jail for about one month, ‘no useful purpose would be served in sending him behind the bars and it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence impoSed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. On the other hand counsel forthe respondent/State has opposed this submission of the appellant’s counsel. 7. ln the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. However, keeping in.__view the fact that the appellant is about 55 years, that the incident had taken place 23 years back, that prosecutrix has already married somewhere else and is leading a settled life and that the accused/appellant has already remained in jail for about one month, jail sentence imposed on him is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for. one .year from that seven years as imposed by the Court below u/s 376/511 IPC. However, the sentence imposed under Section 342 IPC is maintained. 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Sdl- Eritinker Diwaker Judge