. . m"llllllllHHllllllHllll 0000058360 1N TUE HxGHVmURT OF MADHYA PRADESQAT‘ JAE’A’L’EMR (MP1: I z'qgo 3* CBIMINAL APPEAL NO . l F 1995 APPEWNT z BHOLA ALIAS LQKESHWAR s/o LAXMI PRASAD Aged j R/o about Nagri 30 Years Thana-Sihawa Occupation Tehsil—Dhamta-ri Beetal Shop Districfci Raipur (MP) Vs STATE OF‘MADHYA PRADESH Through P.S Sihawa Tehsil-l)hamiéri District Baipur , (MP) ,. a: A f ‘ l \ \ AEPEAL U/s 374 (2) OF THE CRIMINAL pROCEDURE CODE éwceie» ‘ ‘ Se _ nten ce rx‘ ~ .2 Years and _ fine of Rs 500“ in de£ aul‘c .RI 3 Months. Convict ion 325 I ..P.c,<' [Orkhr of Huew § m r Rw ‘ HIGH COURT aF CHEAT?ESGARH éigILA8WER $3 : HON’BLE MR. J1I$TICE PRI’NNKER DiWAIgER cg.A_._ggg._ 1243 / 1995 APHJCANT Bhcka ([7), Lokéshwar Vel‘SUS RESPOR'DENT State 0f Madhya, Pradesh Shri Y.C.Sharma, @ounsel for ihe appellant: V ‘ $hr§ Pankaj Shriva5tava, P‘L‘ fer $215 Stats APPEAL UN3ER SECTEON 37432} 0? THE CR.?.C. JUBGMENT gimesgow) . . Th9, present apnea] arises out of the .mdgment ami ord€r dated 288.95 massed by the Additidt’xai Sessions Judge. 'D’nemteri in SKY. No. 50/ 1995 whereby convicting the aceuser lamps laqt 101‘ f offence mmishabie under Section 325 0:" the EPL‘ and semencmg him to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine to fu1’ther undergo SI for three months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of dehati na‘n‘shi (Ex.Pj i) dated 24.9.94, FIR {EXP/9) was registered on 25.9.94 gainst the accused] appellant and two other accused persons namely Narendra Prasad and Nanciu Prasad, alleging in it that on the date of incident Le. on 24.9.94 at about 8.30 ptm. when the appiieant Bho1a G as standing near his betel shop, he called the c3mp1ainant Devtal {RWzl} and then assaulted him with the help of nut cracker (Samuta). It is further the case of prosecution that on account of the ssault caused by the accused, the victim has suffered three injuries. fter investigation, challan was filed on 27.1194 and the accused ersons were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 85 294 of the IPC i In support of its case the prosecution has examined r11 ‘ Witnesses Statement of the accused/apoeilant and other co accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr P L in which hey denied the charges revelled against them and pleaded thelr’ i irinocence and false implication in the case. F—‘a‘rl : a w a A p 3 t After hearing counsel for the parties, the trial Cauxt has cquitted the other’ two accused persons but has convicted the ccused/appeliant for the offence under Section 825 of i11e fPC and has sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence this anneal. wvWMb'- ‘ W9) Heard counsel for the parties arm perused the matem'ai vailable on record including the impugned judgment. 6. Contention of counsel for the appeiiant is that he is not . reSsing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the a impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence art thereof only. According to him, as the appellant is now aged about 45 years, that the incident took place in the year 1994 i.e. about l 16 years back, that the relation ‘ between the pomplainant/Victirn and the appellant have again become cordial anti that he haas already remained in jail for about 24,;clays, no useful v_ urpose would be served in again sending him to jail and it would be 'n the interest ofjustice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to he period already undergone by him. He submits that he is Willing to compensate the victim by paying reasonable compensation. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. '7‘ In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partiy allowed. The conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. The appellant is reported to have remained in jail for 24 days and therefore in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. § However, in lieu thereof, as per the provision of Section 357 {3) of the Cr.P.C. appellant shall pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000 to the victim in addition to the fine as has been imoosed by the triai Court. This amount of Rs. lOtOOO shall he deoosited before the trial Court within a period of five months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failure, in doing so, would make the appellant liable to be inside the jail for a period of rigorous imprisonment for six months. q\. ,. Appeal thus, partl‘f‘succeeds. Sd/— ' ’ ‘ Pritlnker Diwaker Judge H_ v