BEFOBE'^-HE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OKCHtiAmSGARH AT BILASPURfC.G.) CRIMINAL APPEAL No__<^7_ if _ Of 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374f?] QF THE CODE OF GRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. APPELLANT ^--"\.\Y^ ^s^ ^^" <?^A..-'^ '^'"~y RESPONDENT VERSUS Gayadas Panika S/o Shri Telanga Das Panika, Aged about 60 years, R/o village- Tilaidaadar, Thana- Kosir, District- Raigarh (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Station House Officer, Police Sfation- Tribal Welfare, District- Raigarh, GONVIGTIG^N U/s456 ofI.P.C. U/S323 ofI.P.C. U/s 334 of I.P.G. SENTENCE Twb'years Rigorous Iinprisonment and fine df a sum of Rs. 2,00/-, in default of payrnent of fine furfher R.I. ior one month. Orfe yearRigQrous Irnprisonment. Two years Rigorous Iniprisonment. All sentences will n-ui concyrrentlx. s^^ <,. <. HI<SH COUI _CHHAtnS6ARHYAT ^m fiayadas Panika State of .Chhattjsqarh Shri Goutam Bhaduri, counsel f.or the appellant. Shri Praveen Das, Dy. <SA for the State. CRIMINAL (APPEAL UN&ER SECTEON 374 (2) OF THE_CO&E_QF This appeal is directed against the im.pugned judgment and opder dated 18.9.2008 passe'd .by Special J,udge;Rgjadrh m Speei.dl Case N:o. 01/2008 convJctiRgthe accys6d/appeliantfor the offences punishable under' Sections 456, 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs.2QO y/S 456, rigorous Jmprisonment for bne-year u/5 323 and rigorous imprisonment for two years u/S 354 IPC, plus defaylt stipuiations. 2. Co.se of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.07.2007 F.I.R. (Ex.P-4) was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-1), .aged about 60 years, alleging that on the previous night at about 12.00 O* clock accused/appeliant along with two other persons had knocked her door asking her to open the house as they wanted to consume liquor, however, prosecutrix had asked th'em to consume liquor outside the Veranda and she djd not open the door. It is alleged that after consuming liquor aElthe three'accused persons left the place 'and after sometime ^, fc5 sfcft^ .-M^-^^^S jifi. .^\ accused/appeHant caane there in an intoxicated condition and asked for more liquor. It is furt'her alieged that the door was broken by the accused/appellant and then he cajght hold of her hand with an intention to outrage her modesty. After completion of investigcrtion, challan was fiied on 31.10.2007 under Sections 456, 354 ahd 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduied Caste <S Scheduied Tribe (Prevention of Atracities) Act. 3. Sd as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled agdinst hirn^ and pleaded hls innocence and fdlse implication in thecase. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the accused/appeliant of the offence punishable under Section 3(l)(xi) of the Scheduled Coste& Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but convicted and sentenced him for the offences as mentioned above. Hencethis appeal. 5. Counse! for the accused/appeltant sybmits thort' he is not pressing thisappeai so far as it relates to conviGtion part of the judgment impugned and wouid confine his argument-to the sentence part of the same only. He submits that the appellantand the prosecutrix have filed an application under Section 320 (2)(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also the compromise entered into between the parties. The said .application and the compr'omise are duly supported by affidavit of the iparties ..rlt and both are present personally before this Court. He submits that the appeiiant and the prosecutrix have decided to resolve their dispute outside the court. He furt-her submits that the appellant has alr-eady remained in jail about 14 days and that he is aged about 63 years whereas the prosecutrix is also aged about 63 years and, therefore, no useful purpose wouid be served in senciing him to jai! and itwould be in the interest of justice if his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State submits that as the offence u'nder Section 456 IPC is not compoundabie in nature, application under Section 320(2)(5) Cr.P.C. is liableto be rejected. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record includingjudgment impugned. As the offence under Section 456 IPC is not compoundable in nature and therefore the application fited under Section 320(2)(5) Cr.P.C. 'm respect of this offence is r'ejected. However, looking to the fact that the accused/appeliant has already remained in jail for about 14 days and that the appellant is old aged person, aged about 63 years, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it wouid be in the interestof justice . if the jail sentence imposed on ,the y'is-'.'j'^.l fc^^'gfc. 1 :":"'.^''^^s^ i: G^] "•*!a»K?S*"" accused/appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Order accordingly. 9. As regards offences under Section 323 and 354 IPC are concerned, it has been stated by the parties that they have amicabiy settled the dispute between them outside the court without fear and pressure f"om anyone and that henceforth they wili have no grudge against each other. In this view of the matter and keeping in view that the offences under Sections 323 and 354 IPC are compoundable with the permission of the Court, the application filed by the parties are aliowed and the compromise desired by the parties is permitted to be entered into. 10. The result of this compromise would be the acquittal of the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Order accordingly. 11. Appealisthuspartlyallowed. | . Sd/- , ^ ^ Pritinker Diwaker '^f^f?^ »*t<*f&*' •s;^