I}!IH!N/IIIHIMHMWIIHIll C FOO IN THE HIGI COURT OF' MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Cr.Appea1 No. H93 0f 1995 a 3 u Sahas Ram s/o Earatu Baret, aged aboutV24 years, resident ofr/ Village ‘Bijhri Police Station Koananda tahsil Katghoraféiéftt Bilaspur (MP .3 APPELLAMT Versu s state of Madhya Pr'a esh, through Di stri ct Magi strate, Bil aspur; V ‘ RE$PCNDENT A§>PEAL UNDER SECMCN 374 (2) OF Cr.P.C. Sentence Conviction Under Section 363 of IPC « R.I. for 3 yeqrs m ana Fine of Rs. 500/- ln default o£ fine additional RJ. £01: three months. \ I m a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU R (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1173 of 1995. APPELLANT Sahas Ram. VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri H.S. Patel counsel for appellant. Shri Vivek Sha‘fma PL for respondent/State. V: CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ‘ J U D G M E N T ' (09.02.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.7.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 367/1993 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him toundergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three mOnths. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 9.5.1993 FIR (Ex. P- 2) was lodged by Rasiya (PW-2) alleging that on 8.5.1993 at about 7 p.m. her daughter had been kidnapped by the acgused/appellant. On the basis of the FIR search was made and the prosecutrix (PW- 1) aged about 11 years at the relevant time was recovered from the possession of the accused/appellant. 3. i In support of its case the prosecution has examined seven “witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded, under Section 313 of the 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 convicted and sentenced the accused/appeHant as mentioned above. Q 5. At the threshold, counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his arguments to sentence part thereof only. He has also filed applications (IA Nos. 1 and 2) for compounding the offences as according to him the parties have amicably compromised the matter out side the Court and they do not want to drag the case any further. Both, the appellant and the pros‘ecutrix are also present in the Court and they are identified by the counsel for the appellant. 6. Counsel for the respondent/State submits that the offence under section 366 IPC is not compoundable in nature and therefore the applications filed for said purpose are of no use. 7. ‘ Submission of the State counsel appear to be correct and therefore the applications for compromise being lA Nos. 1 and 2 are rejected. 8. However, considering the fact that both, the appellant and the prosecutrix have got married elsewhere and are leading a settled life; that they have already compromised the matter outside the Court, that the offence was committed in the yeare1993, that the appellant has already remained in jail for one month and 19 days and that the appellant is ready and willingto reasonably compensate the prosecutrix, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in unsettling the appellant by again sending him to jail and interest of justice would be met if the sentence imposed on the appellant is {reduced to the period already undergone by him by ~ «enhancing the amount of hri’é. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. lmpugned judgment I so far as it relates to conviction of the appellant ls maintained and the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. ‘ However, in stead thereof, the fine amount of Rs. 500 as directed by _>_.. the Court below, is enhanced to Rs. 10,000. It is informed that fine of Rs. 500 has already been deposited by the accused/appellant. That being so, now the appellant would pay a fine of Rs. 9,500, out of which Rs. 7,000 would be given to the prosecutrix. This be done within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. lf the amount is not deposited within three months, the appellant shall undergo entire sentence as imposed by the Court below. 1l0. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands partly allowed. test». i i‘ ’ Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge ‘.‘