\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR " Single Bench: Hon’ble 5hri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. ; Cr. Appeal No. 340 of £02 ‘ w ‘ APPELLANT (m JAIL) : Aghan, aged 23 yeats, Slo Pardeshi, \ agricuiture, R/o Village Masha Khanar, Police Chowki Bhanu Pratappur, District Kanker. Vef§ll§ : Slate of Chhattisgarh APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C.V RESPONDENT Preseh‘t: shri Anil Kumar Pandey, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sameer Behar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL JUDGMENT ‘ (Delivered on this 131“ day of March 2009) Heard finally. 2. By judgment dated, 11-02-2002 delivered in Sessions Trial No.464/2001 by the Special Judge (S.C. & S.T. Act), Bastar at Jagdalpur, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376 (2) (g) and 506(3) of the l.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a tine of Rs.4,000/- and in default of’payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 376 (2) (g) of l.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a tine of Rs.2,0001- and in default of payment of tine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 506 (B) of l.P.C. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ‘ i ‘ t g , (3) Briefly staed the rasecutin story is that in the intervning nigh of 20’5‘ and 2‘ July of 2001, he appellant along with one co-accd-Johan i Lohar committed gang rape on the prosecutrix, a girl below 16 years of age under a threat to kitl her. F d (4) .I.R. EXP-1 was lodge by the prosecutrix on 02-08-2001 at Police Station-Kachhe, District Kanker. Dr. Hemtata Sahu, P.W.9 examined the vprosecutrix on 04-08-20 and found that hymen was ruptured. Vaginal 01 slides were reped and st fr chemical aalsis. On query st by he par en o ny a en t Police Station Bhaupratappur, Dr. Hemlata h opine that the prosecutrix n Sau d was subjected to sexual intercourse. Afer comptio of investigation, te t len h appellant was proscuted under ction 376(2) (g) an 506(8) of l.P.C. e Se d (5) The appellant abjured the guiltand plead false imication and le ed pl d evidence in defence. The trial Court foun the testimony of the psecutrix no d ro rustworthy. lt further hel that on the ate of occurence, the prosecutrix was t d d r belo 1 years of age as her date of birth was 0-4—186. The trial Cour w 6 509 t also took into consieration the evidece of Dr. Smt. emlta Sah, P.W. d n Ha u 9 n convicted and sentnced the aellant aforesaid in par 1. ad e pp as a A co mi (6) Shri . K. Pandey, learned unsel for the appellant subtted at the very outset hat he would not press s appeal on me bu e woul argue ‘ only on the estion f sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant urged qu o y m ri n that the appellant, a oung an of 23 yea had already undergoe incarceration from -082001 till date i.e. sev years and seven mths. 06- en on and therefore, the sentence awarde by the learned rial Judge shou be d t ld reced to the snence already undergon by the appelnt. du et e la /\ t po e t 1 t use t thi rit t h d 3 (7) 0n the other hand, Shri Sameer Behar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State argued that the sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge is commensurate with the gravity of offence and no leniency should be shown to the appellant. (8) Having considered rival submissions, l have perused the record. Considering the fact that the appellant has committed gang rape on a minor girl, l am of the considered opinionthat no leniency can be shown to the appellant on the question of sentence. The sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge is‘befrtting and commensurate to the offences for which the l appellant has been convicted. (9) ln this view of the matter, no ground for showing any leniency to the appellant in reducing the sentence awarded by the leamed trial Judge is made out. (1 0) The appeal has no merit which is accordingly dismissed. " Sd/- , [l I FrigDilip Raosaheb Deshmukhi . > ,7 Judge ‘\.\.~...g ll‘xlg I \t ; J a easy. r. 7, , t wee-ugtywa ,.4ite.,$tm