Karnataka High Court
Veerabhadra @ Yogesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.168/2012
BETWEEN:
VEERABHADRA @ YOGESH
S/O MAHADEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
R/O BASTHIHALLI VILLAGE
CHINAKURALI HOBLI
TALUK PANDAVAPURA
DISTRICT - MYSORE.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH K.R.SAGAR POLICE,
MYSORE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.G.M.SRINIVASA REDDY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.1.12
PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC, SRIRANGAPATNA IN S.C.NO.167/10
- CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 376(1) OF IPC AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF SEVEN YEARS
AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5,000/- (RUPEES FIVE THOUSAND
ONLY), IN DEFAULT TO PAYMENT OF FINE, HE FURTHER
2
UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 376(1) OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 24.1.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court at Srirangapatna in S.C.No.167/2010 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 376(1) IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 07.02.2010 at about 2.45 p.m. at Basthihalli Village of Pandavapura Taluk, when the victim, who was aged 17 years, went to nature's call, the appellant came there and hugged and kissed and felled her down with an intention to commit rape on her and thereafter, he committed rape of the victim who is a minor girl thereby it is alleged that 3 the appellant has committed an offence under Section 376 IPC.
3. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined PWs.1 to 17 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and produced MOs.1 to 11. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However by the impugned judgment, the learned Judge was pleased to convict the appellant and sentenced as aforesaid. It is this order of conviction which has been challenged by the appellant in this appeal.
4. The Station House Officer, KRS Police Station received a complaint from the victim on 08.02.2010. It is stated in the said complaint that on 07.02.2010 at about 2.45 p.m. when she went to pass urine in the open space behind her house, one Veerabhadra @ Yogesh S/o Mahadevaiah came near her and caught hold of her and kissed her forcibly and thereafter, he came forward to rape her. He felled her down and lifted her frock and committed forcible sexual intercourse. She suffered pain and so she screamed and at that time, her brother came 4 and saw the incident and at that time, Veerabhadra @ Yogesh left her and ran away. She informed the incident to her brother. Her brother approached the village elders. However, till the next day afternoon, the accused was not available. Her uncle by name Venkatesh, her father, mother and her brother decided to give a police complaint and brought her to the police station and hence, she has prayed for taking suitable action against the accused Veerabhadra @ Yogesh.
5. The Station House Officer of KRS Police Station, on receipt of the aforesaid complaint, registered the same in their Crime No.25/2010 for offence under Section 376 IPC and transmitted the FIR to Court. Ex.P1 is the complaint. PW-9-H.B.Venkateshaiah was the Police Sub-Inspector in the KRS Police Station on the date of incident. PSI forwarded the victim for the medical examination through PW-8-D.Nagarathna, Woman Police Constable. He has secured the accused through his subordinates and sent the accused also for medical examination through his staff. After medical examination, 5 the accused was brought back to the police station whereafter he was forwarded to the Court for further proceedings. PW-13-Prabhakar Rao Sindhe, Circle Inspector of Police took up the further investigation from PW-9 and thereafter, he visited the scene of occurrence in the presence of witnesses and spot panchanama has been prepared by him as per Ex.P2. He has recorded the statement of PW-2-Praveena, PW-3-Rajaiah, PW-4- Venkatesh, PW-5-Venkatesh and other witnesses. On 10.02.2010 WPC-D.Nagarathna produced the under garments of the victim and so also the sealed packets as per Ex.P6 before PW-13. On 12.02.2010, PW-16(CW-22)- Nandisha, Police Constable produced the clothes worn by the accused so also the personal belongings of the accused collected by the Medical Officer which is seized as per Mahazar-Ex.P7. PW-13, thereafter, got the Age Estimation Certification from the Medical Officer on 14.02.2010 as per Ex.P11 and thereafter, he forwarded the materials seized in this case for FSL examination. He has secured the document regarding the scene of 6 occurrence and also a certificate from the School where the victim was studying as per Ex.P10 and Ex.P13 respectively. On 25.3.2010, PW-13 filed charge sheet in this case. The FSL report obtained subsequent to the filing of charge sheet, which has been produced before the Court was marked as Ex.P14.
6. After the charge sheet was filed, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions since the offence is exclusively triable before the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge at Srirangapatna framed charge against the appellant for which he pleaded not guilty whereafter victim was examined before the Court.
7. In her evidence, the victim has stated that she knows the accused and he is called as Yogeesh in the village. On 07.02.2010 at about 1.45 noon, she had gone to pass urine behind her house in the open space. At that time, accused came there and by inserting a cloth into her mouth and holding her tight dragged her inside the sheep shed of one Venkatesh. He has thereafter removed her 7 clothes and forcibly kissed her. He also removed his clothes. He touched various parts of her body. He also removed her underwear and thereafter he committed sexual intercourse with her for about half hour. Accused has not allowed her to scream. At that time, her brother Praveena came to the house. On seeing that his sister is not inside the house, he came towards the open space and through the window of the shed of Venkatesh, he saw the accused. At that time, after seeing her brother, the accused left and ran away. It is stated by the victim before the Court that her parents were not in the house at that time and they had gone to coolie work. She informed her brother about the incident. Her brother informed the incident to everyone. The villagers asked them to hold a panchayath. However, accused did not listen to the said panchayath. Hence, Panchayath advised them to give a complaint to the police. Hence complaint is given. PW-1 has identified the complaint before the Court as per Ex.P1. She also stated that she was taken to K.R.Hospital, Mysore and subjected to medical examination where the 8 doctor has removed blood and other materials from her. Police had come to her house and she showed the scene of occurrence to the police. She has signed Mahazar Ex.P2 being the spot Mahazar. The victim also identified the clothes worn by her while deposing before the Court. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that she was going to school in the bus and that she had attempted the SSLC examination two years prior to the incident. Except on 09.02.2010, she had not gone to the police station again. She has stated that she has removed the clothes in the hospital and given to the doctor. It is elicited from her that on the date of incident, her father had gone at 5.00 a.m. in the morning for plouging and her mother had gone for agricultural work at about 9.00 a.m. Her brother has not gone for masonry work at that time but was working in their fields. It was about 2.00 p.m. when her brother came to the house. She was not talking to the accused any time. Accused had to cross four houses before he could come to her house. The houses of PW-4 and accused is facing each other. The house of one Nanjamma and 9 Sujatha is situated opposite to her house and the house of Shantamma is adjoining her house. The neighbouring house will be able to hear any noise from her house. Similarly, they are able to hear noise from the neighbouring houses. At the time of incident nobody was there in the neighbouring houses. She has seen the sheep shed of Venkatesh after stopping her school. She has stated that both sheep and cows are teathered in the said shed. The house of accused is not visible from the said shed. On that day, she has not locked the house because she was watching T.V. inside the house and since she has gone only to pass urine, she has not locked the door. However, whenever they go out, they lock the house. There is a distance of 5 feet from the door of their house to the place where incident happened. There is no other house in the place where incident happened. On the eastern side of her house, the shed of Venkatesh is situated. The same is not locked during the day time. The said shed may be about 10 feet in height and that contains a window. The said shed also contains a door 10 and a window towards east. The window is about 5 feet height. She is able to look outside if she stands near the window. The distance between the place where she has gone to pass urine and the shed of Venkatesh is about 15 feet. She has worn glass bangles on the date of incident. She has also stated the colour of the shirt of the accused so also that of his pant. She has also stated the colour of undergarments of both herself and accused. It is also elicited in the cross examination that the accused had kept her clothes as well as his clothes at one place. He had come to the place where she was urinating. He held her in his hand and took her and since the accused held her; she could not go to her house. Accused hanged clothes of both of them near the window and both of them were naked. It was 2.15 p.m. when they went inside the shed. They would have been inside the shed for about 10 minutes. Her bangles were broken. Her clothes did not touch the cow-dung because the shed was washed. It is in her evidence that when her brother came the accused was performing the act and when her brother saw, she 11 was not wearing the clothes on her body and there was a distance of 5 feet from the place where her brother stood and where she was found. When her brother came, accused took his clothes and went away. When her brother came, accused was also not wearing clothes. He ran away naked. When the victim was questioned as to what obstructed her brother to run behind the accused, she had replied that since she was naked her brother went to bring a towel for her. It is elicited from the victim that since the accused was holding tightly, she could not extricate herself from the accused. The evidence thus deposed by the victim has been suggested by the defence as an improvement since the aforesaid facts are not stated before the police. However, PW-1 stated that these facts are narrated before the police. It is suggested to PW-1 that there was a proposal for one Srinivas to marry her. Srinivas is her mother's elder brother's son. However, the said Srinivas has one sister by name Jyothi and there was a proposal to marry Jyothi to her brother Praveena. However, these suggestions have been denied by PW-1. 12 It is further suggested that her brother had some quarrel with one Sannaswany and she has denied the same. It is suggested that she is deposing falsely and no rape has been committed on her. However, it is also suggested that since the accused is earning well she was interested in marrying him and therefore, a false case has been filed in order to coerce him to marry her. She has denied the same.
8. PW-2 Praveen is the brother of the victim. In his evidence, he has stated that on the date of the incident, he came to the house at about 2.30 p.m. It was a Sunday. When he reached the house, he could not find his sister, the victim. Hence, he went behind the house and while so going, he heard some noise from the shed of Venkatesh. When he went near, he saw his sister through the window and at that time, he observed that his sister was screaming. The accused was committing rape on his sister. When he went to catch hold of the accused, he pushed him and ran away. When he enquired his sister, she narrated the incident to him. Thereafter, he went and 13 informed 4 to 5 persons. It was decided to inform the panchayath. However, the accused did not listen to the panchayath. Hence, the complaint was given. In the cross examination, it is elicited that he is an uneducated person. He is working as a mason. He does not have a holiday on Sunday. It is suggested to him that the victim was proposed to be married to Srinivas. However, the said suggestion has been denied. It is also suggested that the said Srinivas was roaming around with his sister for about 4 to 5 years. But the said suggestion was denied. He has further stated in the cross examination that he saw the incident from a distance of 5 feet and when he saw the incident, there were no clothes on the accused. His sister's clothes were also removed and being unable to see her, he went inside the house and brought the cloth. He has stated that except himself, there were no other persons around. It is also elicited that accused was wearing blue colour underwear and white colour shirt and black colour pant.
14
9. PW-3 Rajaiah is father of PWs.1 and 2.
However, he is not an eye-witness.
10. PW-4 Venkatesh is a neighbour. He has stated that the victim and her family is staying behind his house. He was informed by PW-1 and others regarding the incident when he came home at 5.00 p.m.
11. PW-5 is another Venkatesh who has stated that his sheep shed is by the side of the house of the victim. He has stated that he heard some noise and when he came out, he saw the accused running. He saw PWs.1 and 2 at that place. PW-1 explained to him that accused had dragged her into his sheep shed and she was weeping. However, prosecution has treated this witness hostile regarding his further evidence.
12. PW-6 Dr.Nirmala has stated that about 1.30 a.m. on 09.02.2010 one Woman Police Constable Smt.D.Nagarathna produced the victim before her with a history of rape at about 2.45 p.m. on 08.02.2010. PW-6 has stated that there was nail mark on medial aspect of 15 the forearm of right side of the victim. PW-6 has narrated that hymen was torn, pelvic examination admits two fingers and patient was menstruating and uterus was normal and there was no vaginal tear. PW-6 has collected the materials required for the case. It is stated by PW-6 that the clothes of the victim viz., blue coloured long skirt, white coloured school uniform were blood stained. Yellowish cream top and blue coloured underwear was also blood stained. PW-6 has issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P3. PW-6 has stated that based on the clinical and investigation papers, she is of the opinion that the victim is used to an act of sexual intercourse. However, there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. Her opinion is marked as Ex.P5. In the cross examination, it is elicited that the marks found on the body of the victim could be caused by scratching by small stick or by brushing to rough surface. It is also elicited that the bleeding would have been due to menstruation. Victim had stated before her that she had menstruation.
16
13. PW-7 Mahadevu is a mahazar witness who has signed Exs.P6 and P7 under which clothes pertaining to the accused have been seized by the police.
14. PW-8 D.Nagarathna is the woman police constable who had accompanied the victim to the hospital.
15. PW-9 H.B.Venkateshaiah is the Police Sub- Inspector whose evidence has been discussed in the earlier part of this judgment.
16. PW-10 Mahesh is the official of village panchayath who has given Ex.P10, the tax extract of the sheep shed of Venkatesh which stands in the name of latter's wife.
17. PW-11 Dr.Udayashankar has stated that on physical examination, dental examination and radiological examination, the age of the victim is about 18 to 19 years as on the date of her examination which is carried on 13.02.2010.
17
18. PW-12 Dr.Parthasarathi has stated before the Court that on 08.02.2010, he has examined the accused Yogeesha @ Veerabhadra, aged about 19 years and on examination, he found that there was nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing sexual act and he has issued a certificate as per Ex.P12.
19. PW-13 is the I.O. whose evidence has been discussed earlier. In the cross examination, it is suggested that he has filed a charge sheet in this case without examining the papers properly, but the said suggestions are denied. Certain omissions made by the witnesses have also been elicited from PW-13.
20. PW-14 is the Head Master of the school where victim was studying. He has issued the extract of the school admission register as per Ex.P13.
21. PW-15 S.Kumar has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
18
22. PW-16 Nandeesha is the police constable who has assisted in the investigation.
23. PW-17 V.Nagaraju is the police constable who has apprehended the accused.
24. It is from the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses that the learned Sessions Judge has held that the appellant is guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC and convicted him and sentenced him as aforesaid.
25. Heard Sri.Pavan Chandra Shetty, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri.G.M.Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP for the State.
26. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there are lot of discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, more particularly, the statement of the victim herself. In the complaint, she states that the incident has happened at 2.45 p.m. whereas in the evidence before the Court she says that the incident has 19 happened between 1.45 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. It is his further submission that she has stated in the complaint that she herself has given the complaint whereas the victim states in her evidence that the police have recorded her statement. He further submits that the conduct of the accused as narrated by the prosecution witnesses is unnatural. He further submits that the accused has voluntarily surrendered before the police and this fact may be taken into consideration. He further submits that the prosecution case is full of omissions and contradictions and therefore, the version of PW-1 cannot be believed. It is also submitted by him that the Medical Officer has categorically stated that there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse on the victim and hence, the entire case of the prosecution falls to ground. It is also further stated by the Medical Officer-PW-6 that the victim was habituated to the act of sexual intercourse and therefore, her version before the Court cannot be believed without any medical support. He has also pointed out to the fact that the FSL report in respect of the vaginal swab and 20 pubic hair of the victim is in the negative. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be allowed.
27. Sri.Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP on the other hand submits that apart from the evidence of the victim, her own brother has supported the case of the prosecution insofar as the incident is concerned. PW-4 Venkatesh has also supported the case so also PW-5. Though PW-5 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, he has stated that when he came out of the house after hearing the noise, he saw the accused running. This evidence of PW-1, 2 and 5 clearly establishes that the incident has happened as alleged by the victim. He also further submits that the evidence of PW-6 indicates that there were nail marks on medial aspect of the forearm of right side of the victim. Hence, he submits that the accused has committed rape on her. It is also his submission that since the victim was already undergoing menstruation, it is possible that traces of seminal stains would have washed away, since the incident has happened at 2.45 p.m. on 07.02.2010 and 21 the doctor has examined her on 1.30 a.m. on 09.02.2010, i.e., nearly after 34 hours. It is also submitted by him that during the intervening period of 34 hours, it is human nature that the victim would have passed urine and also would have washed her private parts and it is too much to expect the FSL report to be positive, when the victim is examined 34 hours after the incident. Hence, he submits that appeal may be dismissed.
28. PW.1 is the victim. Her evidence vividly describes the incident of rape committed on her by the accused. In her evidence, she has categorically stated that in the afternoon of 7.2.2010, the accused came near the place, where she was passing urine, which is situated behind her house and caught hold of her, kissed her and thereafter dragged inside the sheep shed of one Venkatesh and committed rape on her. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by the fact that the complaint-Ex.P1 also contains the description of the said act committed by the accused.
22
29. PW.6-Dr.Nirmala, states that on examination, she has found a nail scratch mark on the medial aspect of the forearm on the person of the victim. She has also stated that hymen had torn. She has further stated that when the victim came to her, the school uniform which was white coloured had blood stained and blue colour underwear was also blood stained. She has opined that the victim was used to the act of sexual intercourse, but added that there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that the bleeding of the victim may be due to menstruation. It is elicited in the evidence of PW.6 that the victim has stated that she had undergone menstruation on the previous day. From the evidence of the victim and the evidence of PW.6, it is clear that the victim had suffered some external violence prior to her coming to PW.6. The fact that the hymen was torn, further indicates that she has been sexually assaulted. Therefore, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the victim has been sexually assaulted and has suffered 23 injuries due to external violence on 7.2.2010 is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
30. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim has been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused. To substantiate this aspect of the case, the evidence of PW.2, who is none other than the brother of the victim is very much material. PW.2 has stated that when he peeped through the window on the date of incident, at about 2.30 p.m. he saw that accused was committing rape on his sister and when he went to catch- hold of him, the accused pushed him and ran away. This evidence of PW.2 is further corroborated by the evidence of PW.5-Venkatesh, who has stated in his evidence that when he came near the place, where he heard some weeping sound, he saw the accused running from the scene of occurrence. Though PW.5 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, this evidence regarding the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence and his running away from the said scene remained unchallenged in the evidence of PW.5. Therefore, it can 24 be safely held that the victim has been subjected to sexual assault by the accused on the date of offence. The trial Court has held that the accused has committed an offence under Section 376 IPC.
31. However, Sri H.Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that this finding of the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous, in view of the evidence of PW.6-Dr.Nirmala, who has categorically stated that there is no evidence of recent intercourse in the person of the victim. Hence, even if it is held proved that the appellant was present at the scene of occurrence and that he tried to have sexual assault on the victim, he was not successful in doing so. It is also based on the FSL report regarding presence of seminal stains in the swab of victim which is in the negative. However, Sri G.M.Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP submits that it is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.6 that the victim has disclosed that she has suffered menstruation on the previous day. He further submits that there is a time log of 34 hours from the time when the victim was raped and 25 the time when PW.6 examined the victim. Since it is elicited that the victim has suffered menstruation, it is possible that any traces of seminal stains in the private part of the victim would have washed away. He also submits that for the said 34 hours, it is human conduct that the victim would have washed her private parts thus vanishing the evidence of presence of spermatozoa in the vagina of the victim. This fact is also further confirmed by the fact that the Doctor has opined that the victim is habituated to the act of sexual intercourse.
32. On a careful examination of this aspect of the case of the prosecution, it is possible that the evidence of sexual intercourse could have vanished from the person of the victim. It can be held that the accused himself is responsible for this state of affairs because when he was called for the panchayath immediately after the incident, he has not come for any negotiations and some time has lapsed in approaching the Police Station. The FIR has been lodged at 6 p.m. on the next day i.e., on 8.2.2010. Therefore, necessarily one cannot expect that a woman of 26 the status of PW.1 would have thought of any significance regarding the evidence required in the Court when she goes to the Court and as naturally as any village woman is concerned, she would have definitely washed her private parts. Thus, the said situation speaks of the absence of any evidence in the FSL report. This cannot take away the eyewitness account of PW.2 and the version of victim regarding the sexual intercourse committed by the accused. Added to that, it is elicited in the cross- examination of PW.1-the victim that the accused had sexual act for 30 minutes. The victim is also not a small girl. In her cross-examination, she has vividly narrated every part of the act committed by the accused. She has also stated that the victim has removed her clothes and his clothes and he had hanged the clothes away from the place where he had committed rape. Under the circumstances, the evidence of absence of seminal stains on the clothes of the victim as well as on the clothes of the accused is explained by the prosecution case itself as brought out in the cross-examination of the witnesses. 27 Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the accused has committed rape on the victim is either perverse or against the evidence on record or contrary to the settled principles of law. I therefore hold that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 376 of IPC.
33. Sri H.Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a youngster and is an upcoming citizen of young and tender age. The sentence imposed upon him is too severe in nature and the same may be reduced. It is submitted by him that the appellant has undergone sentence of imprisonment for about 1½ years and that the power under proviso to Section 376 of IPC may be exercised to reduce the sentence imposed upon him. The proviso to Section 376 of IPC indicates that for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, the court may impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant 28 that the appellant was a student at the time of commission of the offence and that due to the incident he is forced to leave the education and eke his livelihood as a driver. He also submits that there is every chance of his reforming and coming back to society as a useful citizen. The long incarnation in jail affects his future and also a permanent black mark in his career. Hence, he submits that exercising power under the proviso, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant and some amount of compensation may be imposed on the appellant.
34. Sri G.M.Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP for the respondent/State on the other hand submits that the incident of this nature as mentioned in this case is very serious in nature. In the village scenario, the honour and respect of the young girls in the society is at peril. If any leniency is shown to the appellant, it will have the effect of sending wrong signal to the society. The appellant who was a student ought not to have indulged in such activity and the punishment imposed on him should be a deterrent 29 for others from venturing to commit such acts and therefore he submits that the sentence may not be reduced.
35. I have given my anxious thought to the submissions made on either side. It is seen that the accused was a young boy of 19 years and that he was a student. It is the age when young generation would be in their dream world and the appellant would have committed the act being in such an imaginary world, which is influenced by villagers around. The sentence of imprisonment of 7 years would lead him to cross his entire young age in the jail, which would become counter productive to the national interest. It is submitted that the victim has been already married to some other person and she has been rehabilitated into the society. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the sentence of 3 years with fine would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following order is made:- 30
ORDER
36. The order of conviction for an offence under Section 376 of IPC passed against the appellant is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced from 7 years to 3 years. The appellant is directed to pay a fine of `50,000/-. In default, to payment of fine, he shall undergo further imprisonment of two years. Under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C., the entire fine amount recovered shall be payable to the victim- PW.1. However, the trial Court is directed not to disturb PW.1 but shall summon PW.3 and handover the amount, if recovered, to PW.3 by issuing a cheque in his name. The period of sentence already undergone by the appellant is given set off and the appellant is required to suffer balance period of sentence.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE prs/cp*