m '\- ^ ^ kl~^' •-^^L iiimffliiffli CF0000058208' ®^;,^,®8.U-5RW- IN THS HIGH COimT OF MADHIA.PEiJ&^H AT JABALPHR GRB4I L APPML NO^T^ of 1995 ^.PPSSLIAm (ACGITS2D) I^ J-AIL . IH[J KAM, alias .thu, son of Jany (Aama) Kewat, aged 25 years residest of Sikonha, P.S. Patqn, ^ District Dug. Versus _g!D_SHF,. STQTS OF tidDHIAPBADESH TBROUGH the Distriet Magistra-be,Darg. M^ APPEZL UIDBl SE-CTION 574 OF I H B CQDE OF CEIMIffiL PROCa)UEE. •? i^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pritmker Dtwoker Cnminal Appeal No. 577 of 19^ APPELLANT (In Jail) RESPONbENT Nathu Ram dias Nathu Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Shri D.K. Vishwakarma, counsel for the oppellant. Shri Neeraj Mehta, Panel Lawyer for the State. Appeilant Nathu Ram alias Nathu is present in person before the Court-. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECHON 374 OF THE CO&E OF CRIMINAL PROCEbURE JU06MENT (25.01.2010) The appellant in this appeal is chajlenging the legality, validity ond propriety of the Judgment doted 20.2.1995 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Triat No. 532/1993 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penol Code ond sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3^ yeor's. 2. As per the case of the prosecution on 1.4.1993 F.I.R. (Ex.P-1) was lodged by prosecutrix (PW-1) aged about 10 years alleging in it that on 1.4.1993 at about 8 p.m. the accused took her on his bicycle and then on the way he made on attempt to commit sexual intercourse with her, 3. So as to hotd the accused/appellant 9uilty, prosecution has examined 9 witnesses in support- of its case. Stotement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of &/- the Code of Criminol Procedure in whlch he dsnied the charge levelled against him and pjeoded his innocence cnd fajse impljcatjon in the case. 4. After hearing the part-ies the triaj Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appeSlant for the offence os mentioned above. Hence this appeol. a 5. Heard counsel for the pcrl-ies and perused the materN aivajlabje on record including the judgment Impugned. * 6. Counsel for the oiccusedAxppellant submits that he i^ npt^ pressing this appeal as regards conviction porj' of the judg|nent | impugned and would confine his argument to the sentence pqr't of the same only. According to him, the appellcHTt- js iSuffer'ing l from paralytic attack and is not even in a position to stand ond as he has already remained in jail for obout six months, tooking to his pathetic condition he may be sentenced to the period atready undergone by him. To this submissjon of th? counsel ; for the appellant, state counsel has no objection. 7. The appellant has been brought in the Court by his neighbour and his condition appears to be pathetic. Considering - dl the aspect of the case, in a peculiar circumstance of the case, the submissions as made on beholf of thedppellant is accepted. E 8. Accordingly, the appeaj is partly oliowed. Conviction part- of the judgment impugned is hereby maintained. As regords sentence, the appeljant is sentenced to the period "olready undergone by him. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge