MANIRAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 3-7-97, passed in Sessions Trial No. 437/94, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, convicting the appellant under Section 376(2)(f), IPC, sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 10 years, pay fine of Rs. 2000.00; in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one year and under Section 354, IPC sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 2 years and pay fine of Rs. 1000.00; in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 6 months, has filed this appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court levelled the charges against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 376 read with Section 511, IPC and under Section 354, IPC. During the course of trial and after the evidence was brought on record, the Trial Court did not amend the charge nor required the appellant to answer a charge under Section 376(2)(f), IPC, but in its final judgment despite recording that charges under Sections 376/511, IPC were levelled against the appellant, convicted him under Section 376(2)(f), IPC. She submits that the evidence brought on record is contrary to the original case and without modifying and amending the charges, the Court could not convict the appellant under Section 376(2)(f), IPC.

(3.) Faced with the situation and legal impediment, learned counsel for the State submits that even if the accused is not liable to be punished under Section 376(2)(f), IPC, he can still be convicted under Sections 376/511, IPC. He further submits that to provide proper defence to the appellant, it would be in the interest of justice to remit the case back to the Trial Court with a direction to amend the charge and give proper opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses afresh and prove his defence.