'\ ^^iaOail) C J.P.R./9.94 , CF0000062521 Cs^-. ^Q^\\<b*> ..^-^ APP'EAL OP PRISGrNER ^Na""'^^. ^^/9fe Name °<^/<?(^~ Eathefs name \ , ^ ^.^_ __^Q ^. ^ _^Z. ^^' ^T^'- ^)U' ^y ^T if^^^ff^ fjrf'^f^ ^^-f/ < f^ Residente.6^- sfi/'^i^.^—He- Sentenced to ir ± ^ ^ Under Section^r-^r^W—on'^9-^ by _^.^.TT ^^i^ jb^ pti^ (in.o' Tt is explained to the prisoner that iflie states he wishesto be represented by a legal practitioner the appellate Court will not proceed with the case for sevendays unless the tegal practitioner appears earlier. Ifthe legal practitioner does not appear within seven days he may not heard at all if the Prisoner states that he does not wish to be repre- sented by legal practifioner the court may proceed at once with the case and will not be obliged to give a hearing to my legal practitioner who should appear. 1 2 3 4 y^ r .7r\-y\ A Date of Application for copy of Judgement __ \ ^ y /-y y^^^'^f^ /pj/y ^/^/sy Date on which copy received Date on which Appeal sent f^i^ia- Whether the prisoner wishes tobe represented or not, fii/T^ ^i'^7 ^ No^ Q 9^.^&.- ^?/'/ Name Confiried iri No. ^L_fi Jail ^J^f^' ^^w ^^7T ^.2.^ Aoy/^^C (&f^lJS^T} Dated Forwarded to the ItlJ'l 199 Q_ ^i<^f\ ^T^,^^41^^^ ^^^J/^^,M> ^^•^t^^ gether witha copy ofjudgement or order passed in the case forfavour oftransmi- ssion to the proper Appellate court. Uf Ident 5^r ^-f^ms? .:1 Jail Date of reeeiptiD __ Office Date of receipt of record to accompany the Memo of Appeal to the Appellate court :^..-^-> / ^••. No Dated Forwarded to the )f receipt in Appellate court 199 x;.'^. lv. (P.J. O..) \- ^ IN THE HIW 0©0RT©FCHHAIIIS&AfiH AT BILA^)0R Criminal Appeal No<30^1/39 Raadil vs» State of M<P. (eaahattisgarh) jimiEii Beiiqg aggrieved by tfeie jiadgmeBt dated 14-^-1999 passed in Sessions Trial >.512/98 ^y tMe learned First Addl.Sessions Judge, AiBbikapur convicting the appellant ynder Sectien 376/511 I»P«C»and senteiaeizig him t©andergo rigoroias ic^risoximenfc for six years^ tMe s^pellant has filed this appeal. 2. The proseca-ition case in brief is that on nigMt of 5-9-1998 at abotat 11<00 p<m. when the proseeutrix was all aloxie at Moae the applicant knocked tfae door, entered in the house, fell the presecutrix ©ragroand and committed rape iip@n her^ TMe matter was reported to the poliee and aftereompletion ©£the investigatioii a eharge-sheet was filed against the ^ppellaat. As the acet.ised deaied the commission of ©ffence^Me was piat t©trial* 3« After recording the evidence andhearing ttie parties, the learned trial ootirt held that the preseeution ©ouldnot bricg/g^l'fc punishable under Section 576 I«P,C. toat was successful in briagiiag home the guilt punishable under Seetion 576/511 I.P.C.. 4e Learned coynsel for the appellaot siitmits tfaat present appears to be a ease ojt consent and as the said adaltry was detected, the proseeutrix made a false repert. She also sulamits that the prosecution coul<^,not prove the ^^Ui^ ;( 2 - case bey©ndshadow of doubt^ tMerefore^ as there are unfolded mysteries in the prosectitioii casef the benefit should b®extended in favour of thepetitionesr/appeliant* 5. © n the other haiad, learned G@iansel for the State submits that the stat^aents ©ftheprQseaatrix if are seen in their true p1^speetive, it would ©learlyappear that the aocused did enter in the house and made an attempt t© commit rape ugon the proseeutrix^ Accordixig to him^ the prosectatKfcw had brought home the guilt and the appeal deserves to be diaaissed* 1 6* P.V. 1 Paraaeshwari Bai hadelearly stated that after faeariBg the knock on the door sbe ©penedthe same, the aceased foreed his entry in and after felliNg the proseGMtrix OM the ground eommitted rape iipon Mer* She also stated that she raised an alarai but her parents-An-law 1 ©oiatd^ot come t@ the spot because the accused had already belted ISssSswsSfsssK tfae doors of their house, She alsp stated that she ^>ened the doors o£ the room Qf her parents* in-law,wh©immediately eame and saw the a ecused* These ! 1 parfeiGular facts that tfae do©rwas opened by her the j parents-in-law eame tap and saw the a ccused in tl&eir owa J eo^trt-yard are w^^eS ^iy P»W.2 Bha@war Singh, P.W.5 Nanka &am and P.W.4 ©^alabiBai. 7» In the Gross-examination of P<W.1, P.W.2 and P»W»5, the aceased could not Iri^tg arythix^g en the reeord to show that either the wttnesseswore telli^g lie or were tryisg j < . • .' ' •. • ' \""1 to fixt.be acai-ised* On this material aspect, tfae ; proseditrix is also sy-pported by her husband Bhanwar SlE|gh« ©. TMe doctor P«W»8^t.S.L* KLizar ^id examiBe the /-f t> 3 - prosea.itrix bat was unable t@ give fhe report atoout the commission of rape< 9< ©nthe reeord aothiBg has been brought by the scpplicant/acGUsed to sMow ±teaA aad suggest that the proseaitrix is telling lie£. The defeaee of the Gensent eaa straight-way be re^ected because it is nobodyts oase that the proseautrix was^seesa in the eoaapany ©£the accused and to save Mer deaia sfae was l©<3giiigthe false report» On ffae other hand, it has come en tlie re©©rdthat laoiae had seen thea and it was the prosecutrix who had ©penedthe bott A?ow the do©rQf her pareats-ia-law» 10» After giviitg BQT aaxious considerations to the I arguments Q£ -the parties aiad on going through the r ec©rd, I am unable to h@ld that the applicant has beeo wroi?gly held guilty of the cOimiission of the crime puMshable landerSection 576/511 I.P.C* • 11« At this stage, learned coynsel f©rthe applicant sftibmits that the sentenee suffers with the ^ueaxfif vtce of excessive^ess tee©aiisei£miMmum awardatele sentence f©r Gommissioia o£ an ©£fen©e under Sectien 576 IPC is seven years, thea six years sentence in a ease of an att^ipt is toad« She has prayed ^B that as the applieaiat is in jail since 8-9-1998 aad as during thependeacy of this ^>peal the applio ant miast have ear^ed some r^aission, the seatence be redMoed to tbe period already u.Edergoaae by h©r^ 12. On the otber hand, leariaedcounsel for the State sulaaits tfoat ^iia ©aseo.f an attoap^ghalf ©£the loiigest <>.t^rei2ii^pftA^<ZSB-e^<^^^d^ and te3nm^Gan be awarded to the accusedy/as in a case o£ Seetion 376 I,P*C« li£eiB^risonment can be awar^l>th^e_is-a@ s©opefor iQterfQ'enee. Ci^ 4 - 13 <i After heariiqg the learned oounsel for tMe parties and e©nsi<iffl?iagtMeir rival eontentiens, andalso takir^ into eoasideration that minimum awardable seatence for an offenoe piaiaishable under Section 376/1 »P.C< w©^ld be seven years, award ©fsix years rig@r©asifisprisonment would be on the higher side. The sentence is redu©edt@ the period o£ 3^ years. 14< The applicant is injail* He fifiaall serye oiit the remaiai^g sentenee^ 15» The eppeal to the exten-t indicated above is allowed. 16 • Let tMe reeords al023gwith tbe copy of tfae judgment be sent to the trial oourt for e®ntificatioa. Sd/- R.S. Garg Judge 12-1-2©01.