'^^"•":. ['-^"•"^ ....,W s~/^ S'r."' ; - q/^ ,!.' .,c<y' ,<© ^Q .o0. L^ !a Bencl JN THE HICTI COURTTOF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR (C.G.l CRIMINAL REVISION No^B_i Of2006 APPLICANT RN JAILT Jitendra Painkara, aged about 22 years, son of Chhabilal Painkara, Occupation - Student, Resident of village Karwarjor, Tahsil and Thana- Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 7r- The State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Raigarh (C.G.). NON-APPLICANT ^' CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397/461 OF THE CRIMINAL /' ^•'' PROCEDURE CODE r^- :C-22 2^'iii 7RI f<;--Tig? si^i sb'-;i* 'gi??r ~3^ 'fWi'l'-l, ^WWIS, WWV.y. .G~.^. zg^('k6C .sn^iwgiWHftH conwction of the appeUant but reduced point for consideration is whether the ^•I'.llfl'lill ^ltRff ^ fS^ ^Si^K ^? sif^ sn^i . 11.05.2006 Shn S.K. Tiwari, leamed souns^l forthe applicant. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, G.A..for Staft Leamed counsel for the applic^it submits that he does not piess M.Cr.P. No. 964/2006 for suspension of sente^ce and grant of bail and prays fhat this revision be heard finally today, at the st^ge ofadmissipn. Prayer is not opposed. As prayed, M.Cr.P. No. 964/20C|6 is dismissed as withdrawn. This revision is heard fiitally to^ay at the stage ofadmission. The applicant was convicted un^er Section 354 IPC by the trial Judge and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 mjonths. The Appellate Coiut afBrmed the Ithe sentence ofR.I. of6 inonths to S.Ifor 3 months. Leamed counsel for the applica^it submits that he would press tlus appeal only on fhe question of sentence. Itl ^ew of the aforesaid submission, the only ^entence awarded by (he Appellate Court calls for any iaterference. Leamed coi^nsel for the applicant has argued that the appiicant was aged 22 years on the da^ was also contended ihat the applicant iq fe of occurrence and is a &st offender. It a student and imposition ofjail sentence is Ukely to destroy 'lris- eareer. On th4 ottler hand, Shri Sumesh Bajaj, leained counsel appearing for State has opposed the prayer contending that in view ofthe conduct of the applicant in outraging ttie modesty of the prosecutrix, no farther ieniency needs to be shown in the sejitence ah'eady reduced by fhe Appellate Court. appears that the applicant had cau^it Having considered the rival sutimissioiis, I have perused the record. It fiold of the hands of the prosecutrix and ^_ _ ['qt^ ^f wls'Si^SsS-'-ySS-S-f-V XI-HC-22 -Svi "iiwicf-i), 's^flwis, fitini'yy sn^r 'IR^ ,.CV:K^..^..?&l.t_^B&^ flTqc'iT %»irai •f^^T' SD^iqiT R-)i.«bsn^i **<i«h"Hf?^ Priya l:8iaii ^'•y ^ ^. & '^ ^ 3II^?I ?®II8|IT^Hfel removed her 'Chunni' stating fhat he W( which Ihe clothes offhe prosecutrix wer^ is fally corroborated by Ku. Laldunani prompt wntten F.I.R. lodged on 28.5.200jt Considering the nature of offencs had outra^ed the modesty of the'prosecufrix has already reduced Ifaesenterice ofR. fiirther lenieacy is caUed for, in the sentejice manifest error of law or illegality is 9.3.2006. This revision is dismissed at flie sfs(age ofadmissioiL. ^!<if<'i'41i irm^ff ^ f^T£r<F^^.R ^ aipgii sn^l -2-- luld outrage her modesty as a result of tom. The testimony ofAe prosecutrix .W; 2 and Ku. SushUa P.W. 3 md by a at P.S. Lailunga vide Ex.p-8. and fhe manner in which ttie applicant rix and the fact Ihat the AppeUate Court for 6 months to S.I for 3 months, no awarded by theAppellate Court. No wen in tfae impugned judgnent dated SA-1-^^<1' .0&^' [^^R^l