@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHI BILASPUR Criminal Aggeal No.39 of 2007 Atmaram, S/o Sonuram Kalar, aged 56 years, Occupation Service, R/o Village Sorar, Police Station Gurur, Distt. Durg (C.G.), Presently R/o Gangrel, Police 'Station Arjuni, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) APPELLANT: Versus State of 'Chhattisgarh, ‘Through Incharge Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} . RFSPONDENT'. resent: , P Mr. Abhay Tiwari, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/ - respondent. ' Single Bench: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL JUDGMENT (3-9-2009) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 28-9-2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No.207/2006, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section 511 of the I.P.C., sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years. . Judgment is challenged on the ground that without any iota of evidence learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 1-4-2006 at Village o commit the offence Mother of the Gangrel Bazaar Para, the appellant attempted t of rape upon the prosecutrix, aged about 5 years. prosecutrix reported the matter on the same day vide EX.P-1. Spot EX.P—3. The prosecutrix was sent for medical map was prepared vide examination and no injury was found over her body. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari, who in turn, committed the case to . & a€é?l’e Court of Sessions, Raipur, from where Iearned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. . In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. Statement of the appellant was reCorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence & false implication. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted & sentence the appellant in the aforesaid manner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned as also the-record of the Court below. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has served out the sentence imposed upon him and he was released from jail. Learned counsel further submits that in the light of the evidence of Smt. Saroj (PW-1) — mother of the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix (PW—2) & Mannuram Sinha (PW—3), he is not disputing the conviction & sentence awarded to the appellant. . Evidence adduced onlbehalf of the prosecution is sufficient for drawing inference that the appellant has attempted to commit the offence of rape upon the prosecutrix, aged about 5 years. The Court below has rightly convicted the appellant. As regards the question of sentence, taking into consideration the age of the prosecutrix, R.I. for five years imposed upon the appellant is just and proper. I do not find any scope for interference in the judgment impugned. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sdl— T.P. SHARMA Judge so, £ J 46V Soma ’/. /. . .