JUDGMENT

R.C. Khulbe, J. - This Jail appeal, is preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.02.2019, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Chamoli in Sessions Trial no. 11 of 2017, State vs. Giriraj whereby the learned trial court has convicted the appellant under section 363 and 366 IPC and sentenced him five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 363 IPC and also sentenced him five years rigorous imprisonment under section 366 IPC with fine of Rs. 10,000/-

2. Brief facts, of the case, are that PW1-informant submitted information with Revenue Inspector, Simlasu, Tehsil Pokhri, District Chamoli on 13.04.2014. On the basis of said information, chik FIR (Ex.A1) at 2:30 p.m., was lodged on the very same day. After investigation charge sheet was submitted on 04.07.2017 against the present appellant. Accordingly, the concerned Magistrate took the cognizance on 07.07.2017. After compliance with the provision of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Accordingly, the concerned Sessions Judge framed the charges under section 363 and 366 IPC on 21.04.2017. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced PW1 informant, PW2 mother of the prosecutrix, PW3 uncle of the prosecturix, PW4 prosecutrix, PW5 Arjun Kumar Shah, Lecturer Government Inter College, who proved the date of birth of the prosecutrix (Ex. A3), PW6 Jaideep Singh, who proved the FIR (Ex. A1), PW7 Mukesh Singh, witness of the recovery PW8 Kulveer Singh, PW9 Constable Kiran Kumar and PW10 Madan Lal, Revenue Inspector, who investigated the matter and prepared site plan (Ex. A6). He recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet (Ex.A11).

4. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused/appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded in which he denied all the evidence and stated that the prosecution produced false evidence against him. In defence, no evidence was produced.

5. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under section 363 and 366 IPC and sentenced him, as mentioned in para no.1 of the judgment above. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal.

6. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the State through video conferencing and perused the entire evidence available on record.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that she does not want to argue the case on merit because the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant based on evidence. She fairly submitted that the matter relates to the year 2017, and the appellant has no criminal history. The trial court has convicted the appellant in abovementioned sections and sentenced him five years rigorous imprisonment against which he already served three years in jail. She submitted that the Court, while upholding appellant s conviction, may consider to alter the sentence awarded to the appellant and reduce it to the extent of period already undergone.

8. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that there is no minimum punishment prescribed for the offence, and as per the jail report, the appellant has served three years in jail and three years punishment is sufficient.

9. I have also gone through the evidence on record, statement of the prosecutrix and statements of the witnesses and came to this conclusion that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant based on sufficient evidence, as produced by the prosecution. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned findings regarding conviction. From the jail record, it is clear that the appellant has served about three years in jail ; he does not have any criminal antecedents in his past life; and, he is not required in any other criminal case except the present one, it is considered to be just and appropriate to reduce the sentence from five