IN mE‘ HISH Com? 9F JWIGATERE AT BEASPW (6.5.) anna Appeal noJOZO /zoc3. wk/’ RPW’ACCESW V Malia alias suraj§ aged 27 (In juéieial mastody) YO“? Ram Kama: ;s/arua1, resident pf pchimgg ma . 9.3.sarkanéa.' Bilaspur'y Tab. c: Matt. nuaspnr (med WM versuao state of Chhattisgsrh Tglr.“gh v sooosarkaada, TahJc Distt’Jilaspur (c.¢.) (1mm a? Appm mm sm'rxou 374 (z) GE THE cans a? autumn. mocmmx. 1973) w XI-HC—78 WW . CrMOloInz m 200 eném W (Wu) WWW awmm WWW WW @${¥§R %a1'f%m3néa DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI K.H.N. KU§ANGA, (RT é HON'BLE SHRI LC. BHADOO .T 16/12/2003: — Heard 5hri MD. Sharma counsel for fhe appellanf and 5hri P.5. Koshy, @ovf. Advoca’re, fgr' The Sfa‘l‘eYIfespondenf. This appeal namely Criminql Appeal No.1010 of 2003 has been filed by accused/appellanf Mallu alias Surqj agains? ’rhe Judgmenf dafed 25*“ Augusf 2003 passed by +he Special Judge (Afr-oci’ries), Bilaspur- in Sessions Trial No.118 cf 2001 where y ‘rhe learned Special Judge affer‘ holding 1'he accused/appellanf guil‘fy of The offences punishable under Sec‘l'ions 302 read wi‘l‘h Sec‘l'ion 34, 24 read wi‘i'h Seci'ion 34 and 323 read wifh SecTion 34 of ‘l'he Indian P nal Code convic‘l'ed and sen‘i’enced him fo undergo imprisonmenf for Iif and 1'0 pay a fine of Rs.200/- in‘ defaulf of paymen‘l’ of fine fo fuM undergo simple imprisonmeni’ for fwo monfhs, 1'0 undergo rigorous im risonmen‘l‘ for six monfhs and To undergo rigorous imprisonmenf for o e mom-h, respecfively. ‘ If is submif‘red ‘l'ha‘l‘ there we e five accused in fhe said sessions case and fwo accused have been cqui‘r‘i’ed. Accused Mahan‘i' alias Mahendra, Diwakar alias Guddu d Mallu alias Surqj have been convic’i‘ed and senfenced in fhe afor said manner. ‘ Appellanf Mallu alias h d XLHC—78 3%? “WW WE, Wmg Qxf—WNMDIDIN mm 12W (Kai‘wég) ‘W r “cmfsm’s‘a’ma‘f rm-“ w a SuraJ has filed This appeal alone againsf fhe said judgmen‘r AH The +hree accused mciudmg fhe prese 1' appellan‘r namely Mahan‘l' ahas g Mahendm Duwakar- alias Guddu and «\allu alias SuraJ have filed Criminal 3 Appeal No.1108 of 2003 and i’r is perlding before 'l'his Court : In The Circumsfances we are ys/ of The opinion ‘iha‘r This appeal is l i unnecessary since fhe appellan‘r i ‘rhis appeal is also an appellan'r in l Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2003, 'lhis appeal stands disposed of as l unnecessary. l i Shri M.D. Sharma counsel f r- The appellanf is permi‘Hed +0 appear for appellanf No.3 - Mallu ali s SuraJ in Criminal Appeal No 1108 of 2003. In View of This order I A No 698 of 2003 sfands disposed of Sdl- L c BHADocI Judge M “W 7/ l x Sd/ Chief Jusnce ' l i , _ V_ _ 7V“ wr l l l i f