/ XH-189 (Jail) C J.P;R-i9-94 ^^^s^^ Ve" W-fo _^. \ _ _° , LH J ^-f •St^-—Name^ X ^'^1^'- r^^ ^atfeef's name r\ r\'1 .^t^Ti j Residence"^^-^--^Tp(T^^5f-^- 5p5^-Age '3Q ^ ; _ J Sentenced to''fe T-~^T^r^ <->T? S.) pn t)°i./sT^^Q •<§•^Q"JQ nii "C^WW'WW 5 %c^) UnderSectio.^w^R?'B^. ~^^[^mW^.^^^^. ^IKT liO^ (A) I-P'^T^'^wlr^^T.TO^T^m-.ram.S^- ; j 1'iiS'B Elill Bll illi ya Jt is explaiEed to theprisonei- that if he statea he wishes'to be represeated by ,a ;legal],.CT>T B practitioner.the appeUate.Court will not proceed with the case for seven days unless the | legal practitioner appears earlier. Ifthe legal practitioner does not appear wifbin/seven {; days lie may not heard at all if the Prisonerstates thaj;he does not wish tp be repre- jl sented by legal pracritioner"tbe courtmayproc£e<iat|bncewiththecaseand7wiUnpt (ite obiiged to givea hearing to my legal practitionerwhoshouldappear. . - Date of Application for copy of Judgement ^) ss Date on which copy received' Date on which Appeal sent ^. n s^- i q( <~i-i:; • '^' Whether the prisoner wishes to be represented or not .s-Z ^L .!p No ^T>TTeG:- 3 C1 J ^l S'k7L^ame__^T%^C7<-^Wte ^-t^-^~\ Confined in ^T^)(A f®|ttlNF^<,:^*f: 5'^ J^' Q^w^ i Dated Forwarded to the ,^ . -'\ _ _ __ 1\ _ •^^l-^^y^'2-^ ^H-^ ^^'t|^t S^f ^1^1^-^<S jtto getherwithacopyofjudgementor order passed in the case' for,favour oftransmi-y"^ (lision fo tfae proper Appellate court. BA ^A»»&ilASPUl Jail 'ceipt in Office Date of receipt of record to accompany the MemoofAppeal to the AppeUate covat N0 Foiwarded t6 the ae; of receipt in Appellate court ..' .;*SB.»^ t^a 3oNSi^ .:\ Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinjfer Diwalcer' _2139 tflSSS St;9te of Madhya Pradesh Shri Manoi Mlshra, counsel for the appeltant. Shri Neeraj Mehta, P.L. forthe State. ft.i^.v^^' ^.JIT ^II^W,.SVK.S »,S »-UUfcUi- i-KAillNAi- ff^ ^fc-s 0.03.2011) This appeal is directed against dated 23.06,1998 passed by First Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. accused/aDDeltant under Section 3( sentendng hlm to undergo rigorous years. the judgment and order cjo.nai Sesslons Judge, of 1997 convirtlng the )4 part II of IPC and jmprisonment for eight 2 Brief facts of the case are that on 05.10.1997, entry was made in the Roinamcha vide Ex. P-5C on the basis of the mformation given by th'e-^deceased Sonia Bai that on that day at about 11.30 a.m. when she had gone to the house of her maternai uncie, the accused/appeltant Sonkunwar came there along with h^r fsther Amar Sal and on the instigation of Annar -Sai, the ace'used/appellant assauited her by means of wooden rla'nk which was tYina there as a result of which she sustained injury on her left_ eye-brow and head. On 07.10.1997,. another Sanflg.-CRolnamcha) Ex. P-6 was recorded in which it has been stated by the deceased that on account of some disp.utethe accused./appetiant had beaten her. On the basis ,or ^these two Rojnamcha, FIR Ex. P-9 was nfegistered on 07.10.1997 against the appe'Slant Sonkunwar and the '^cf^^S'!^^ 'sKaO-^ "'gKys: ..\ -2-- acquitted accused Amar Sai for the offence under Section 325 of IPC. Subsequently the deceased died on 10.10.1997. Merg intimation was givsn to the poilce and after investigation Chailan was fijed on 20.11.1997 ror the offence under Sections 109, 302/34 of IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused' persons guiity, prosecution has examined 12 wjtnesses-'in support of its case, Statements of the accused persons were slso recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in .which theY denied the charges levelled sgalnst them and pleaded their innocence and faise impllcation in the case. Apart from this, one witness namely Shankar Singh Yadav (DW-1) has also been examined by the defence In support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acguitted the co-accused Amar Sai of ali the offences whereas the present appeliant has been though acquitted of the offence under Sectjon 302 of IPC but convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 304 part II of IPC. 5. Heard counsei for the parties and perused the materiai available on record" inclijding thejudgment impugned, "^ 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeai as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugnefi judgment and would confine his argument to V / the sentence part thereof oniy. According to him, the incident had taken place about fourteen years back, that the appetlant has atready remained in jail for about two years and four months, the appellant is a iady and now aged about 33 years having small chiidren, no useful purppse wouid be served in sendlng her back to jail and it v^ould be in the interest of iustice jf the seatence imposed on her is reduced to the .ss^ 's^ --3- period already undergone by her, To State has no serious obiection, !ls, counsel for the 7. Accordingiy,. the appeal is partly attowed, Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintalned but Sooking to the peculjar facts and circumstances of the case, in particujar, the incident had taken place about fsurteen years back, that the appeliant has already remained in jaii for about two years and four months, the appellant is a lady and now aged about 33 years havinq smatt chHdren, the Jall sentence imposed on her is reduced to rigorous imprisQnment for 3 years from that of years as has been done by the Court below, However, in lleu thereof. the appeilant is directed to pay a fine of Rs, 3,000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. As the appellant is o.n baii, her bail bonds stand cancelled and she is directed to be sent back to jail forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sentence smposed on her. ^'3U^B Sd/~ PritinkerDiwaker Judge "^ v /