SHRIRAM URAV Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal assails the judgment and sentence passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur dtd. 25/4/2019 in C.R.A. No.1267/1999. By the said judgment, the appeal was partly allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court/Sessions Court was modified inasmuch as the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 363 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") was set aside while confirming the sentence under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant is before this Court.

(2.) The appellant-prosecutrix had lodged an FIR bearing No.83/1997 against the appellant herein at Batouli Police Station, District Surguja, Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) under Secs. 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC. Pursuant thereto, investigation was carried out by the investigating officer and chargesheet was filed against the appellant herein as well as the co-accused i.e. Kalauti alias Kalawati and Ameer Sai. Charges were framed on 9/2/1998 by the Sessions Court under Secs. 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC. Charges under Sec. 368 of the IPC was framed against the co-accused Kalauti alias Kalawati and Ameer Sai and they were tried by the Sessions Court in Sessions Trial No.16/98. All the accused pleaded not guilty and requested for trial. They denied having committed any offence in their statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and stated that they have been falsely implicated. The prosecutrix deposed before the Sessions Court as PW-1. The doctor, who examined the prosecutrix deposed as PW-5. The Sessions Court passed the judgment in S.T. No.16/1998 convicting the appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC. However, the co-accused Kalawati and Ameer Sai were acquitted. The appellant was sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 363 of the IPC; five years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 366 of the IPC and seven years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Sec. 376 of the IPC and a fine of Rs.200.00, in default of which the appellant was sentenced to undergo further two years rigorous imprisonment. All these sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and imposition of sentence by the Sessions Court in S.T. No.16/98, the appellant herein preferred C.R.A. No.1267/1999 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench). The appeal was transferred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the year 2000 on creation of the new State of Chhattisgarh. In 2003, the prosecutrix got married to the appellant herein and they now have four children from the said wedlock. By the impugned judgment dated 25.04.2019, the High Court partly allowed the C.R.A. No.1267/1999 filed by the appellant, upholding his conviction and sentence under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC and setting aside his conviction under Section 363 of the IPC. The punishment given to the appellant for offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC was maintained. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for first respondent-State and learned counsel for second respondent-complainant.