Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 28 (CHH)

JAGDISH v. STATE OF M. P.

2011-01-27

PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 29.04.1995 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 142/93 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 376/ 511 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.02.1992, FIR EX.P-l was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW -2) aged about 16 years alleging in it that on 04.02.1992 at about S p.m. when she was working as labourer in the house of one Gopal Seth, the accused/appellant who \Vas also working as mason at the same place threw her on the floor by catching her hand and made an attempt to commit forcible sexual intercourse with her. Based on this FIR. offence under Section 376/51] of IPC was registered against the accused/appellant and after investigation; challan was filed on 09.02.1992 for the said offence. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined• 05 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 against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available 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 impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident had taken place about] 8 years back, that the accused/appellant is now aged about 60 years, that the appellant has already remained in jail for about one month, no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail and it would 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. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. However, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, that the incident had taken place about 18 years back, the appellant has already remained in jail for about one month and he must be now an aged person and sending him back to the jail would disturb his entire family, the Jail sentence imposed on the accused/appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, in lieu thereof, the appellant is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 which would be payable to the prosecutrix within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the fine amount as directed is not deposited in the trial Court within the stipulated period, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Appeal Partly Allowed.