s^^JSORE: P | IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR IC.G.) ^ ^ Sinaia Bench Criminal Appeal No.:- ]^1 / 20 %/' S.B. APPELLANT:- >PEL] t' ^ ^^ ^T :.^ c^^-:,. ^•^^^ •^-" . "•"" ^,'v VL. JALESHWAR SINGH, Age about-20Yrs. S/o Vijay Singh, R/0:- Village :-Suretha, P.S. Lalpur, Distt. Bilaspur, [C.G.] VERSUS: -^" RESPQNDENTS:- ^ STATE OF CHHATTISGARH. Through The Police Station, Lalpur, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur [C.G.] -: MEMO OF CRIMINAL APPEAL U./ SECTIQN 374 [21 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:- '^^^y^^s^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. JusticePritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2005 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Jaleshwar Singh State of Chhattisgarh. Shri J.A. Lohani counsel forthe appellant. Shri Vivek Sharma PL for fhe respondenVState. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (21 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINALPROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (18.01.2011) This appeal is directedagainst the judgment dated 07.05.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Mungeli, District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 05/2004 convicting the appellant under Sections 376 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 5000 on each count, plus default stipulations. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 6.9.2003 the prosecutrix/deceased Ku. Rani committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and setting herself ablaze. On that day itself she gave oral dying declaration before Surjabai (PW-3) and Kacharabai (PW-4) to the effect that she committed suicide because she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused/appellant, On 7.9.2003 Dehati Nalisi Ex. P-1 was recorded at the instance of Charan Singh (PW-1) - the father of the prosecutrix/deceased and during investigation it was found by the police that on 3.9.2003 when the prosecutrix was watching video in front of the house of the Darshan Singh - the uncle of the accused/appellant, accused/appellant took her to a cattle shed and committed forcible/sexualintercourse with her. According to the case of the prosecution, upon hearing the cries of the prosecutrix/deceased, uncle of the prosecutrix reached there and saw .,^^^'sw^ ^;J-., ' ^ fc.^ w'?r' -^"\-: -' 1 '^&^-^' ^. ili ,.y ^ "^s^.^' "^te.!^' the accused/appellant committing sexual intercourse with her. On 8.9.2003 FIR Ex. P-12 was registered against the accused/appellant under Sections 376 and 306 IPC. After investigation, challan was filed on 13.11.2003. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses in support of its case. Statementof 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. This apart, one Durga Kumari (DW-1) has also been examined by the defence in supportof ifs case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Couri: 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 submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the judgment impugned and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. He submits that as the incident had taken place in the year2003, thatat the time of incident the accused/appellant was a young lad of 19 years of age and that he is in jail since 1 0.9.2003 and if the remission period is taken into account his total detention period comes to more than seven years and four months, no useful purpose would be served in | further keeping him in jail and it would be in the interest ofjustice ifthe sentence imposed on him is reduced tothe period already undergone by him. This prayer of the counsel for the appellant is however opposed by the State counsel. 7. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed.Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. However, keeping in view the fact that as the incident had taken place in the year2003, that the ...:^. ^.^ - '3— appellant has already been in jail since 10.9.2003 and that at the time of incident he was a young boy of 19 years of age, sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the amount of fine is increased to Rs. 10,000 each from that of Rs. 5,000 each, in the interest of justice. As the accused/appellant is already in jail, he be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. This order shall become operational only when the enhanced amount of fine is deposited by the accused/appellant. [ Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^r