.^^.--•Y.-^'V:-^^.- \ IN_^iE_HICTI COURT_OF MAWYA PRADESH AT JABALPUJ^y' .loc4 APPELL^NT ^: t V i1^,. 2£^minal_Apgeal^No« ^—9__2f_^22^i. $ Naeem Ali^ aged about 30 years^ son of Karim Ali^ resident of—n College- Road, JASHPUR NAGAR, District Raigarh ( M.P.) VERSUS RESPONDENT s State of Madhya Pradesh. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374<2) OF THE CRIHINAL PROCEDURE CODB. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1996 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Naeem Ali State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Manish Sharma counsel for appellant. Shri Vivek Sharma PL for respondenVState. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (15.04.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.12.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar, District Raigarh, in Special Case No. 29/1995 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and pay fine of Rs. 3,000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 4.8.1995 FIR (Ex.P- 1) was lodged by the prosecutrix aged about 22 years belonging to the scheduled caste category stating that on that day at about 9 a.m. when she was going to the college, accused/appellant met her on the way and pressed her breasts. Thereafter she went to the college and reported the matter to the Principal of the college and then the report was lodged to the police. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 06 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. After investigation the police had filed challan against the accused/appellant for the offence under Sections 354 IPC and 3(1) —^- (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduted Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that he has filed an application under Section 320 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for compounding the offence which duly supported by the affidavit of the prosecutrix. He fairly submits that though the accused and the prosecutrix both are present in this Court yet he is not in a positionto identify the prosecutrix. Thus the fact remains that there is none to identify the prosecutrix and in these circumstances it is difficult for this Court to accept the application filed under Section 320 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the application is rejected. 7. Apart from this, 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 the appellant is now aged about 45 years, he has already remained in jail for two days, incident had taken place in the year 1995, relations between the prosecutrix and the accused have become cordial and that the prosecutrix has already married someone else and leading a well-settled life, no useful purpose woutd be served in sending him to jail and it would be interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Counsel for the respondent/State has however opposed this submission of the appellant's counsel. 7. In these circumstances the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 354 IPC is hereby maintained. However, looking to the fact that the appellant ^':r^':ff' 1 "^ i ^ .f '•^^^^': 3^ -3- has already remained in jail for two days, incident had taken place in the year 1995, relations between the prosecutrix and the accused have become cordial, prosecutrix has already married someone else, this court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the appellant is directed to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 3,000 as compensation in the Court below within a period of three months from today which would be payable to the prosecutrix. Failure, if any, in depositing the amount within the period stipulated, would make the appellant liable to be inside the jail for a period of one month. - -— Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge qvr