(1) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Cr. A. No. 1381/1996 Setu Kewat and another Vs. State of M.P. As Per : G.S.Solanki, J. Shri Sanjeev Saxena, Advocate for appellants. Shri Akhilesh Shukla, PL for State. J U D G M E N T (19.4.2011) 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgment dated 7.8.1996 passed by Special Judge, Shahdol in Special Case No. 18/96 whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 354 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 months. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 12.6.1996 at about 6:00 PM when prosecutrix Nauhari Bai (PW-3) along with Munni (PW-4), Gayatri and Tejwanti were coming from Paper Mill, Amlai, near Kaser river, appellants and other co-accused persons intercepted them and took the prosecutrix towards forest and committed rape on her, thereafter she lodged the report on 14.6.1994. 3. After usual investigation, appellants and co-accused Suresh were charge sheeted before Special Judge, (2) Shahdol. Learned Special Judge framed the charges under section 376(2)(g) of IPC read with section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. The appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. 5. After completing the trial and on appraisal of evidence on record, learned Special Judge acquitted the appellants under section 376(2)(g) of IPC and Section 3(1) (11) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, yet he convicted the appellants under section 354 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is not pressing for the conviction recorded by the trial Court under section 354 of IPC. Learned counsel has further submitted that if the appellants are sentenced for the period already undergone (approximately 10 days) and fine, the ends of justice would be met. 7. Learned counsel for the State has justified and supported the findings and judgment passed by the trial Court. 8. Since appellants' counsel has not pressed for conviction recorded by the trial Court under section 354 of IPC, hence same is hereby affirmed. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that incident took place 15 years before in the year 1995, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice (3) would be met if the appellants are sentenced for the period already undergone and fine of Rs. 2000/- each. 9. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. Conviction of the appellants under section 354 of IPC is hereby affirmed. Appellants are sentenced for the period already undergone and fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default they have to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. 10. Appellants are on bail, their bail bond and surety bonds stand discharged. (G.S.Solanki) Judge PB