*966T'SI'2,T ^ %ttaB!gE ?s^p ^gS/STS 'WISTS HT *5aas;B:t^ *a3p^ snoTsssg 'Twr 'vSvS 'SSS'XS^vS •SS3^s •K^ •pBsaga 93Sts>3(S9S is^wsfys'twces 'gS^ f.safvyy §'ax29JS ^Z^t2,E B/B TBddcly -[BBTaia^ •e^ I;iWMMBW (ci ^y N *^ •y;x"fv "•-•f^^-^?^-|?s.ti iyo^i paiil-1 't.aB'paoiassg -^eisnooy ^eSTtsaay ••• ££^.0900000^0 • • • • • • .mctgSttg 'aq.B.iq.BtSsg q.OT^STS eqi. q9n«uq<» '•a-ii jo ag.sq.g 'S.tA • • •jn^'BT-i^ "y^sfQ •vyasfW 3swiQ *3*X 'T.iqBdlig-aSs-tfpi jo' viayEaw '^ajnoqii^ 'SSV9£ 9£t&eqs pa9« 'T.iWna a/s •83 TO^aG lEug; •2.6/6"$ t*®8[*V.t3 ys 'jndTsqsf -w 'qse^B.ta sAqpst jo i..ittos q8t& 9^ gi .,^-^'^ .J^^lif-.i^'J-/^^-"*.-'^"^-' KS /<^-^--"l^-^yyr^^>^'l^:=@^^P^^^^^^^^S^^'^^^ '>^3^"^^^M^A^-S'?^<lG<^4v^uq^^?^^^:b?k;^^^ " ~ ' ". S^^'»;L?'<:'^;':ri-i^w;s®^^ •xiSK HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1997 APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: Dukhi Ram Versus State of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh) Present: Shri U.K.S. Chandel, counsel for the appellant. Shri Pradeep Singh, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent. ORAL JUDGMENT (2-9-2011) Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. In this criminal appeal under Section 374 (2)0fthe Cr.P.C., the appellant seeks to challenge the legality and validity of his conviction under Section354 of the IPC and imposition of sentence of R.l. for 2 years and fine of Rs.200/-, in default, additional R.l. for 2 months. 2. Case of the prosecution, fn short, is that in the evening of 17-4-1992, the accused entered the house of the prosecutrix, caught hold of her hand and instructed her to accompany him and on refusal, he threatened that she will be killed. The accused ultimately gagged the prosecutrix and took her to a stone quarry and thereafter she was undressed and outraged her modesty. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for offence under Sections450 and 376 of the IPC. However, the appellant was tried only for offence under Section 376 of the IPC. 4. The prosecution examined PW-1 Manbodh, who is the father of the prosecutrix. PW-2, who is the prosecutrix, has not supported the prosecution with regard to accusation for offence under Section 376 of -J the IPC and has been declared hostile to that extent. In cross- examination, she has denied that the appellant has penetrated. Based on this statement, the trial Court ultimately acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 376 of the IPC, however, in view of the statement of the prosecutrix to the effect that she was undressed and the appellant also removed his underwear, learned trial Court found that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of offence under Section 354 of the 1PC inasmuch as he has outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix. The appellant was thus convicted under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.l. for 2 years. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the prosecutrix was declared hostile, the entire statement should have been disbelieved and the appellant should have been acquitted. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment. 7. This Court has gone through the record, particularly statement of the prosecutrix who has been examined as PW-2. The prosecutrix has clearly stated in her statement that the appellant removed her dress and his underwear. Though she has not supported the prosecution with regard to commission of sexual intercourse, but she has remained unshattered when she was cross-examined after being declared hostile insofar as ingredients of offence under Section 354 of the IPC is concerned. Her statement is supported by the statement made by her father PW-1 Manbodh, to whom the prosecutrix disclosed the incident \^^immediately after coming back to house. The other witnesses have ii : ! 1 also been examined, but to sustain conviction under Section 354 of the IPC, the statements of these two witnesses are sufficient. In addition to this, PW-6 Pusauram, who is the uncle of the prosecutrix, has supported the case of the prosecution. He has also remained firm in cross-examination. There is no material contradiction and omission in the statements of PW-1 Manbodh, PW-2 the prosecutrix and PW-6 Pusauram, who are material witnesses with regard fo commission of offence. 8. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court with regard to proof of ingredients of offence under Section 354 of the IPC is fully borne out from the evidence and no interference with the said finding is called for. Even if the prosecutrix was declared hostile, her entire statement cannot be disbelieved. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for fhe appellant woutd submif thaf the appellant has already remained injail from 19-4-1992 to 12-4-1993 i.e. about a week less than one year and the total sentence awarded to the appellant is R.l. for 2 years, therefore, the sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. lO.The offence took place on 17-4-1992 i.e. about 19 years back. The appellant has undergone about one year outbfthe total substantive jail sentence of R.l. for 2 years. n.The punishment provided under Section 354 of the IPC is imprispnment of either description of a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine, or with both; meaning thereby that jail sentence is -v-^ \ not mandatory under the said provision. 4 l2.Taking into account the above stated broad features i.e. long lapse of time after commission of offence and the fact that the appellant has already suffered about one year ofjail sentence, this Court deems it proper to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. is.Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed in part. The jail sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged and he need not surrender. ~ Sd/- PrashantKumar Mishra Judge Barve