MBBBJ' IS THE HIGH C00&T OF JODICATfTRE AT JABALPOR HABHYA PRABESH . GRIMIHAL APPEAI. NO*_3T^ /l 996 » Appellant! Accased. Respoadent s Mathara frasad S/o BhaaaaraS' Sabu• ^'ageS aboat 3@ years» R/w village-Gogaon, Police stat.lon-Khaataral, Dlstrlet, Rai^rfr (M.P.). .- ' -Vs- • ' ' ^ ,- 1..-. . 1 .. ' ^' • • f" •" . Stafce of Madhya Pra^esti ' ' through Police Statlon-Dharsiwa Chowki-CTrla • Poliee Sta.tieB-Dharsiwa DistrjLct.Raipur <M.P.). 1^4(2 CRrMINAIi APPEAl- tINBER SECTIOH 3^4(2) OF CRIKEBAI. PROCEDURE CODE, 19^3. -. / f'- ^ KI6H COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITI?JXER DIWAKER CR.A. N0. 979/1996 APPSLLANT versus Mafhura Prasad State of Madhva Pradesb Shri Bbaskar P',rasi, counsel for tlie appeiiaiit. Shii Ashish Gupta, P.L. for the State. APPEAL UNDER SSCTION 3'74Sa_1_^F- THE CR.P.C. (08.02.2011} The present appeal-arisps"out ofthe judginent ajad orde.r dated 16.5.96 passed by the Special Jiidge, Raipi.u- in Spl. Cr. Case No. 115/1996 eonvicting the acciped/appellant for the oSence purtishable u'nder Section 354 of the IPC and sentenc.m.g hiin to underso RI for six nionttis. 2. Brieffacts of tiie case are that on 8.2.1992, FIR fEx.P/1) was lodged by the prosecutrix (P.W.-l) married lady, aged about 22 years alleeiiig fhat when she was coTnine after carrvins a c&n of waf.er on ber head, accused/appellant wiiti au uiteation to outrage her niodesty, pi'essed her breast whereupoa tiie pot teH down and she ran towards tlie factonr. On flie basis of this F'lR, offence iLnder Section 354 of .fhe Indiaa Penal Code was registered agaiast the accused/^p^eUant. Afrer investigation, challan was ffled on 19,2.1992 .uiider Section 354 of tlie IPC & Sectioa. 3 (l$ixi of tae SC/ST'fPrevention ofAtrocitiesi Act. 3. In support cf its c'ase; the prosecutior!. has examined as inais.y as seven . witnesses.. Stateinent of fhe accused/appellaiit was also reconled underSecl.ion'313 of fhe Code of Ciiciuial Pi-ocedure ia whicb lie; denied the charges leveled agaiast him aiid pleaded his iCm.oceD.ee aa'd false iirtplication in. the case. ||g!t«N^ ;i>l;Bi> ^'<?i' 4. After hearing counsel for th.e parties, the trial Coiirt has acqiiitted tlie accused/appellsiit of tb.e charge ^uider Section 3(ll(x) of ttie SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but has convicted him under Section 354 offbLC IPC and sentenced hiin as uieationed above. Hence this appeal. 5. Sliri P}-asi, counsel for the appeUajit subinits tiiat he is not pressiag fhe appeal as far as it relates t6 conviction part of the inipugned jiidginent aiid would confiDe his arguinent to the sentence part fhereof only. Accordiag to him, as tlie appellaat is now aged about 50 years, that fhe incident took place BI the year 1992 i.e. about 19 vears back. that the appellant is havuig fa-milv responsifcility and tuat be bas ah-eady reiuamed ui jai] for about one inonth, no useful purpose would be served ia agaia sending him to iail aiid it would be in. fhe interest of iustice if fhe sentence imuosed on him. is reduced to fhe period alreadv undergone iiy hiia. He subsiits fhat he is w.iUiD.g to co:mpensate the prosecutrix by payiag reasonable conipensation. To fhis, couasel for fhe State has no serious objection. • 6. la. fhe facts aad circutustances of tfae case, the appeal is partly aUowed. The conviction part of tbe mipugned judginent is uiaintained. TIie appeUant is reported to have reniained iil JaU for aboiit. one uionth and fhe incident took place about 19 vears back, sentence imposed on him. is reduced to fhe period already luidergone by niin. However, ia. Ueu tliereof, . the appeBaat shall pay a coinnensation of Rs. 3.000 to fbe orosecutrix. This auiount of Rs. 3,000 shalt.be deposited before fhe trial Court wifhia a period of six months from. the datewf receipt of copy of fhis order. Failure, ia. doing •• / so, .would BiaKe tlie 'appeIlaEtt-Uable to be uiside fce jail for a period. of rigorbus iiuorisoilment for two montiis. Appeal thus.partly succeeds. t;^/., Pritinker Diwaker Jadge