ll.B~A'^' ] ^^ le Bench (Crifninai^ IB THB HKS COURT OF JUErCATtJRS Al JABALPUR. Crifflinal ^ppealKo.33| o£ 2000, APPELUNISs (~IN TSIT c-h&n^. 1. Roop aate9 SataaBd. S^o 4'rL-Sa:toaBli aged 22 years. j.eio t\&xu. ^ 2. SoSa.a&lal Sat&aBi. S/o Budharu, , aged sibout 19 years. Both ^/o Khera, (Datsi), P.S. Kasdol, Eilstt. Raipur. BgapGHEaiTt Ibe State of Madhya Pradesh, n'-ig-r' 9. ^PS;A-mnffi-SE^ON.5Z4i2Lof-Tls-®DE.OF-GRi NA f. PBOCS33UKE. ••- ^lo'l" HISH COURT OF C'r wnf .r. Ju Pritiriker SOOD Chand Satnami & another. ffn Jail) Sto.te of AAadhva Pradesh <now { ^' ' ' ~"~ ~.~ ' ' ^ f* naTTiscsa.! Shri Vivek Sharma and Shri Rakssh Thaku.", counsei for the appei'iants. 5hri Pankaj ShrivastGva, PL for the State. SECTlt ;2) OF THE CODE .IWJ.I U E a2,0t.201( Counsel for the appe!!ants submit.s that as the apps!lojits have ajready remainsd in jaii for about 13 mon+hs 19 days, this appea! mo.y be heord fina!!y. Counsei submits that he is not challenging the. conyictio.n of the accused/appeiiants and wouid confine his arguments to sentence part of the i.mpugned judgment on!y. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to he.a" the case finally. This appeal is direeted agc.ir'st ths judgment" datsd 14.12.1999 passed. by Additional Sessions Judge, Baiodabazar, Distt. Raipur in Sessions Trid No. 202/1999 convicting fhe accused/appellants for the offence punishabie under Sectiion 376/511 of the.Indian Pena! Cods and sentencing them to unde.r'go rigorpus imprisonment for two years each and pay fineibf Rs.500/- each, in defauit of payment of fine to further yndergo simple imprisonment of three monthseach. Case of the pposecutio" in b"ief'is that on 5.3.1999'FJ.R. (Ex.P-l) wos rgglister^ed agaiffet the accused/appeHants and ^lse 1 ii another accused Chhunu Satnami (mjnor) for the commission of offence under Sectio" 376/511, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is oJleged that on 2.3.1999 when the prosecutrix (PW-l) was returning from Pond after taking bath, on the. vvay, she was stopped by the present appeilan.ts and the co-accused Chhunu Satnami cmd thereafter, it Js said that her breast was pressed by the accused persons cnd attempt was made to commif sexuo.i intercourse with her. 4. As the co-accused Chhunu Satnami is minor, he is being tried separateiy by the Juveniie Court cnd the said tria! ]s to be periding before the competent Cou."t. 5. So as to hoid the accused/appeliants guilty, prosecution has examined 10 wi+nesses in support of Its co.se. Statements of the accused/appellants wsre also recopded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelied Qgainst them and pteaded thsir innocence and -false sjication in the case. 6. After hearing 1'he pal'ties the triai Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appeiiant for the offence as mentioned above. Hencethis aDDeal. 7. Heard counsel for the. parties and perused the mGterial availoibleonrecordinciudingthejudgmentirapugried. ; Counsel for the appeilants submits that the incideht had: taken p!ace on 2.3.1999 and there was no intehtion on the port of the accused/appeilants to commit the offence. Hesubmits that| the incident had taken place on the eve of 'Ho/i'wher'e cn atfempt was made bythe accused persons to put *^A?/'on the prosecutrix bu+ unfortunateSy she took it otherwise and reported the mnfter. m r ss- Blil <-/' It has bsen further submitted that in the FIR there is no ailegation agalnst the accused/appeiiant- by the prpsecutrix whereas in the coUrt statement the prosecutrix.had impn'ovedlher' version and mo.de o.llegation of rope against the appellant No. 1 and, therefore, tbe entire statement of the prosecutrix becomes doubtful. He furt'her submits that appellants ho.ve already remained in jc,i] for a period of 13 months snd 19 days whereas sentence which has bee.n awarded to them is of two years and therefore interest of justice woujd be served if the sentence awarded to th.e appellan+s is reduced to the period'already undergone by them. He also submits that the pr'osecu*rix has already married to some third person and she is happy in|her new iife. ' 9. To this proposition of the counse.i f.or the appellants, State counselhas no objection. | 10. Accor-dingly, keeping in view the fact that the appeliarsts haye served out 13 months 19 days of jail sentencs and that the marriage of the prosecutrix has already performea' and the incident had taken place on 2.3.1999, this Court is of the v.iew that no usefuj purpose wouid be served in keeping them in detentjon any further and interest of justice woyid be seryed if they are sentenced to the period ajresdy undergone by them subject to imposition ofsomefine on them. | 11. In the resu!t, the apped is part-y allowed. Conviction part of \ the i.mpugned judgment is maintained but sentence imposed on them.^is reducsd to the period dready undergone by 'thsm. j iv Howevsr, the appellants wilt be required to pay a fihe of ^» Rs.5,QOO/- each in addition to the fineearlier imposed bythe Court be!ow. However, it is made cleor that in default of payment of fine, the appeilants wiil undergo the sntire sentence. They be set free if not wanted in any other case. r~°~ D/- Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge f1 -^a-.-— ¥—/ ''^i i.^: ;\: