.. a . , t" I Nankatwa Bhelwétikra,Police 's-{atildn Pali gistrict Bilasp'grJLP. I‘r . / a; Respcndent State of M.P .- CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER éECTIbNé’I4 (é): OFJEHE CODE . ’ <1 ~b’F b’RIMmAL péOCEDURE’ , .r’ / INHIIIHIIIIIIIIHI lIllllllll Foooooss532 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADrlYA PRADESY—I AT JABALPUR V W CR.APPEAL NOAZS’k» /94 / / / ~ f Appellant : ohrlram Dhanuhar, son of Bandan , i Dhamihapa/ged' agent 32’ yefaxfs. ‘ Occupation, Cultivator, residentx’ ‘ "N {A / of village Kunéru Ba‘ra.Rajka‘m:nVa‘, IGH COURT QF GHHATTI§5ARH AT glLASP Single Bennh ; Hon'b§g #‘r. Justice Pri‘rinkgr Dg‘waker Criminai Aggmi No. 1256 of 1994 Shri. Shrdwqn Chanda}, caunsei far fha appeimm, Shri ?ankqj Shr§vasfavq Rmei Lawyer for The $m'ha. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 31’4 (23 GF THE CODE GF CQIMINAL PRGCEBUR£ Q R. Q E § {23.04.2010} Present appeal arises oLn‘ 0f Me mpugned judgmenf and order daied 7.9.1E‘94 passed by 5m Addifiona! Sessions Judge, Biiaspur‘, in Sessions Trm! Np. 1561’1992 c0nv§cfing we, accused/appeiian’r far The affenges punishable under Séci‘iens 363 and 36.6 of The Indian Pemi Coda and sentensing hEm w undergc rigcr‘ws imprisanmem for fwr; year's u/S 3&3 EPC, m undergo rigorous §mprisgnmenf fer Threa yaar‘s u/S 36$ IPC. Bath The sentences werz ardered m run ¢oncurrenf!y. 2. Case of the prosecu'rior: in bréef is The? on 5.5.1990 when ‘The prosecufr'ix {PW-3) aged abeu? 10-12 years had gane To Jung/e To coElect fhe Mahuwo f!owers aiong wi‘l’h hen brother and sis’rer', fhe occused/oppeiiant k§dnapped he!“ by saying fhm‘ ’he wiH marry her and men rook her in his house. Prosecm‘rix was kepi in his house for about? 8 doye and men on‘13.5.1990, she was recovered from the house of me occused/appeiianfr‘ vide recovery memo Ex. P~1. Thereofw‘er, FER. (EXP—é) was regmered aooinsf the aceused/dppeimn? and his wife Jam Bai H ME APPELLmxlT V Shrimm Dhcmukar Versus RESPONDENT Sfm‘e of " Madhya ?mdaas§1 for The offenzm under- Seciions 363 and 36$ of the Indian i’emi Code. 3. So as to hold the accused/appgllan’rs guéh‘y, pmsecufrien has examined as many as 6 wifnesses in supparf of ws ccise. Sfm‘emen‘rs of The qccuszd pergons were a!se remrdgd under Section 313 of The Cede of Criminal Pracedure 'm which. They denied The éhar‘ges iexieiied againsi fhem and pieeded their innocence and false impiicm‘ian in the case. 4. After hearing The eariies ihe Trig! Ceuri hee ecqui’ifed co-accused JeTh Bai bu‘r has canvici'ed and senienced The present occused/aepeiianf as meniioned above. Hence ihis appeal. 5. Hear-d counsei for the parties and per-used the material ldvaitable on record including the Judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugnedjudgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, now the 'I appellant is aged about 5O years, has numerous responsibility, that the incident is said to have taken ptace in the year 199G (l. " \‘Ni Le. about Z8 years back, that mbsequent to the commission of ,4 .— offence, prosecutrix has aiready been morried_with someone else, that the appeliant has remained in jaii for about 17 days, no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jaii and it wouid be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. 7. In View cf above, fhe appeai is par?!y aiiowed. Comv5c%ién parf of The impugned judgmem is mainmined. As appeiianf is reported Ta have remained in jail far abou‘r 17 days, sentence of fwo years rigorous imprisonmenf is reduced to fha’r of one year in respect of offence under Section363 of IPC and senfence of Three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 IPC is aiso reduced To Thai of one year, However, ihe appeliani is directed to deposii’ an amoun‘i of Rs. 1,000 (Le. RS500 in each offence) in The Cour? beiow wi'rhin a period of four months fromihe daie of receipf of copy of This order, Failure, if any, in depositing the amount within the period stipulated, would make the appellant liabie to be inside the Jail, for a further period of two months rigorous imprisonment ‘R l . 7 $df- y Pritinker Diwaker, .Judge l‘\‘\~i 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. i i l