CF000573 0075 H ‘ gh§€ 3wc5 (W T G OT HY PRESH . AT JABALPUR IN HE HIH CUR OF MADA AD Q) V CRIMINAL AAL PPE NC). OF l99l. na ul o o ag, a ye urter No /2 Hllway len Mdrrh P .APPELLM (IN JML he e' ofaa Ps RESPONDEIV Rageér Kma‘ s/ Mhanlal RaJf ged 22 ars (R/o Qa 89 a Coy, anenaga (M). OF THE CE P C : IHHHIIIIIHHHHHI’lmll’lH”J1; ~ 3 T w ) ' VERSUS / T stat lMdhy radéh . CRIMINAL APPE L U S. 4 2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 1991. Rajendra Kumar APPELLANT VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Prades Chhattisgarh). (now V Shri U.K.S. Chandel counsel for appellant. Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for respondent/State. Shri Sanjay Patel edunsel for the prosecutrix. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. J U D G M E N T (19.01.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.3.1991 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh in Sessions - Triai No. 141/1988 convicting the accused/appeilant for the offences punishabie under Sections 363 and 366 of the indian Penal Code and sentencing‘him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years on each count. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.2.1988 a report (EXP—9) was lodged by V. Narayana (PW-6) — father of the prosecutrix alleging that his daughter (the prosecutrix) was missing since 10.2.1988. lt is also alleged that she had eloped with the appellant. However, on 25.2.1988 the prosecutrix was recovered from Jabalpur in the company of accused/appellant. On the basis of this report (Ex. P-9), the offence under sections 363 and 366 IPC w 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 08 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded-under section 313 of the Code r of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled r sh against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the .4‘ OaSe. as registered against the appellant. h @ -2_ 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellants for the offences as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant and that for the prosecutrix submit that with the passage of time the appellant and the prosecutrix got married and now they are living a happy married life. As the appellant and the prosecutrix are Iiving‘a happy married life, an application for compounding the offences has been filed on their behalf. Appellant and the prosecutrix are also present before this Court and they are'identifted by their respective counsel. The appellant and the prosecutrix informed this Court that they are living happily along with their children. 7. \ On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State submits that the offences for which appellant has been convicted are not compoundable in nature and therefore, even if the prosecutrix and the appellant have got married, compounding of the offences cannot be permitted. At this stage counsel for the appellant submits that he is not'pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument‘to the sentence part thereof only. He submits that as the appellant has already remained in jail for about one month before trial and for 17 days after trial, in the interest of justice, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. .He submits that the prosecutrix herself has stated in her evidence that since her school life she was in love with the accused/appellant. 8. Thus in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the fact that the incident is said to have taken place in the year 1988 and that as the appellant and the respondent are leading a happy married life, this Court is of the view that it would not be.wise to unsettle them again by sending the accused/appellant to pnson. V e?“ a} @ "$P 9. Consequently, conviction part of the judgment impugned is hereby maintained. As regards sentence, it is informed that the appellant has already remained in jail for about one month‘iand fifteen days. In the peculiar state of affairs involved in the case in hand, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. l ll Pritinker Diwaker Judge 7" l l l i i./ 10. Appeal is thus partly allowed. l Sdl'