M "" Sh' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATORE AT BDLASPUR fC.G.) Criminal Revision. No.2^ H Of 2006 \ : (Memorandum ofGrmunal Revision u/s 397/ 401 ofCr.P.C.) PETITIONERS: 1. AtmaRamMarkam,8/oKunwerSingh ^(Inj£iy) aged aboiut32Years, \-pt, ^ 2. DhaneAKumar Netam S/o. Jugaram Netam, aged about21 years. ^o^.^......3..-SumanS/o.LuduRamNetamagedabout23years. '" n ..I\\ AoJ^^-'A """ Allare residgnceofVillage- Bihavapara, Thana- ,; &%^--~-i - ^dy<i«^eNariiarpur,]^stt^Kanker(C.G.) , *§-„^O.irNBRSUS- 51 to RESPONDENT State ofChhattisgarh, through the District Magisfrate, Kanker (CG), MEMDRANDUM QF CRIMENAL REVISION UMDER SECTION 397/^01 OFCr.P.C. 1111 m» » X[-HC-22- ali^i'^ir [<-li*;'3K^[: ?h^lN) -M%a tC. •3^'?ETRn?i%^^il*t*j'iB,sfa'ai'ysi< 11KWI WqT* .•a^?r;;'q5RR:'.:^.:,:'..:.\:';, ^.^^M^..^1^ ^ 12-05-2006 ^; :'.-Y .^-' •' :'^: - . 1;' 1, - ,' -w- '.:•''.. • " '"' . 'Shri P.C.Pant, leai-ne^ G^iims^l witfe Shri Neelesh^ Paat, cQurisetftirthjeappIicatrts. -si1^ Slun RavmdraAgraw^t| Eac|j Leanied cpunsel \ft>r the M. Cr.P.No.764/2006 ibr suspenslion wluch is aGCordia.gly disimssed a^ Leamed coi.msel for fhe sfaouldbe heard fiaally todayat' assail the impugned judgment <| and iiot on merils. Not'oppased. /• • :: " ',' ,- ',; 1.—': - . TIiis Revision ^is finaUy sentence. . ~ -:•;'. : : : -••:.•, jpplicauts pray^ ih.at fhis mattier f^e stage pfadinission as lie would cjiity dn the questiou; of seuteDjGe Sltttiau SeCtton- By (he itapugnfid jud^Be|i Dhanesh Ktunar Netam arid Sectioi^-452, 323 read with Afitna: Rant was seiLtcn&edfei und[ moilths and fine of Rs.200/ - a&d unidei^o additionalsimple iictpiis<| 452' of IPG and ijigpraus iiaprisot Rs^200/- in defaxLl.tofg^inenti ^ . ^i^fa'^'H'^i^^if^Ts^-;^i%rt ' .^?3JP(PT31I^?T ! ^:'. ;! Laroyer for Afae State. applieants 'does Bot preSs 'on Qfseiitence atul, graatofbaU, Dot.pressed. fiacd pnly on fhe question of ne|iit, thev appteante Atma Ram, Uave beeu convicted under' :t;tfon-34 of IPG aiid applicarufc No-I td|ergo ngonyus •fauprisGmment for"6 iu default of payaient of fine to? ^nment fer 7 days under Section- so]nTnrait fijr 3" moa.fhs^aiul fiae^of of|fine ta undeigQ afiditioaalFsua|p^, ij :;r' ^i,1 !• ' I I •1.1?': li 1 sn^r'Sit Pi-fi* 3I^?I ?t^i<=t) ^ffsi Q 'Svf rtViWvM, '•a'Swvsf^^M^ H11CTI gKlIcR •3iT^Tr'tra^.;' &^^i^-' £M.?J&3te.My-:.:.^'^:-—*/ ^.^....^,^.........^......^ :^ :^,r sn^[ ?^iTwaf??T Uiulei^o;ja<ldi)yoinal imprisoniiient under Sectk>u-32; Dhanesh and: SanaaU ^weie iuiprisoninieat for 6.:montlis and payiaent of fine to daya under Section-452 oiflPG mouths aad fine of Rs.200/- urtdeigo additioaal simple imprit wtfh Section-34 of IPC Additional Sessions Judge, Ifaa|i 93/2001. jixnpripo: respec^ively ofIPC^aM appKGaiit No.2 & 3 ^siitenced- to undergp " rigoroys |Sne of Rs.200/ - aad in default oP siittple uapiisoiunent for 7 ^md rigorous im.prisonment for 3 default of p^ment of^ fine to ^oiunent ttnder Sectioa-323 .read passed by Shri B. Raiii, Eer iu Crmuaal Appeal Nuinber- Leamed counsel for tiie a( a3Enount Iias already I)eeri depo^i appUcants are youthfiil offinde^ ea^uers, fhe fauuly is suffermg.. agauist ftiein. TUe offence.allegei| aa pfEshoot of sydden qiMrrcl. syffered, axt abr^ion: on the ba< with, sweUu^g^^K was a&o undei^oin.g sentence since 23-0^ uicarceFatknl fer a period of^4^ P.C^Pant, leamed couusel for sentenee awaided by •the-appeU^ti fhat it be redUced to fhe seal appUcatfts, '=hi*i^<i'|^ +ii*i<?if'^^^ "<^^.|<- • ^r.sifigtf sii^i :- . ' coijifended aplicaats subimtted fhaf the fine tted. He also subinitted fhat •the • -They being AIie only bread No previous' couviction is prdved was not pre-ineditated and was Sahedep, fhe uijured persoai Itad ik aiid pain .on the Jeft shoulder that fhe applicaats^ are t-3006 and have fhus uNlei^oae • days. pa these picmises, Shn:' fhe applicants^ argued & rtc Court was Itarsli. aiiAYprayal snee^ already uaiaei^dne by^tlle ~ _-»0 ai i^ li;:' II'i; XI-HC-22 i isn^i^ii lf<<-fi*^3J©?t ^IW^ -^^ ^r' ^^L «. ^ !3^-i<l'>iiri'ii;»fll'(-l«is^.K<s'tl*l'K.^ • :''3TI^!?r'.n[Rra?,'':,,:S-:^,';',:< ^iHCTiw^ict)'"^ ."""'""'"' 'y''''g^ 200 3il^r?Riiw^ifW •3- ;0a fhe ofher haaid,' Shii appearingfortheS'tateopposed R|avmdra'AgrEiwal, leamed;couasel tpepTayer.., .;., .:"• • ' • Haviug eorisjdered rivsigM .belr anti record of Criaaina]. Case Num.1 offshoot of a sudden qyarael . and c»iivictK)n of tiie appeUianti Sahdeo. Injuries found bu & sweffing^ QU ,;fhje leff^shofulder. scuteiu^ aw^rdedby' the trjal Court appears to bfe UaislL undei^oae in.carceration for a ^ aad Sahdeo are residents of aipmosily is alleged by fhe prose<| Haviag considered fhe offhe coasidered opinion tfaaf m| fhe applicaats are seutenced to | by ttlein and to s-fine of Rs. 1, eactt offence under Section 4521 payiaentof fiue, to undergo siiag In view ofthe aboye, thte the applicant-Atraaraxn uuder fhe applicants-Dhaaesfa^Kumar , . cfii^^i -^-rweif "^ fe^ '^N^IX ^ati'WT sil^l. . s|ubnussioas, I Iiave perused tlue e|r-72/ 2000. flbe iaeKlent was an was not. pre-iaeiditatea. Cbaige relate to causiag Iiurt on]y to t|3deo ,vrere superficial cxcept ttie IBC fhis view of the BiattEF, the ami affinned by the appeUafe TIle applicants have alreaxly ;i-i0d pf 49 days. The -appljcaats; sanie viUa^ and n& previous feution. • ;; . ; ! ! . - lAe abdvenientioned ciTCumstances, I ani in|terest Ofjustice would be served'if 1 mlprKoniBent already undeiXoiie I- fl^upees one litousaDid-only)' feir aad 323 I.P.C. and in defaulf of le impnsoument fiw 3 mQiifhSjF»-«<"-*fc Irevisioit 3@ aUbwed. ;Conyictiori Of Sfcctu)n-452 & 323 IPC aiid fhatrbf fcid. SuiaaLaiMule.rSection4§2iaQ)[it vs9 ss a SS'SSiSSS^S ^^^^^s^^^^®^^^@!^^^^^®?.^^^^siE? XI-HC-22 T5T •*tl4W<(,:®'ril<;<<ls,.(^clKrp. 1]*ICTIWfT°b 3Tl1?T TT^qT, ^&,&&...sjM.:..^ ^ ^A^.:.^..^^...,.;^,2oo^' SII^I^iI - R-ii.'*..3D^r. ?tiHicb '^fitT y-t*^ftre- ^fuSs^_^_'_ •f»-^.~!-'y. -^ sn^r ??giw ^ite , •'.^ •s;- 323Bead'mth Seetioa34 Qfthe and reduced to sentence alread^ . '=hi^ii^nEfi"ri *iiH^ff ^ 'f^t •<r^^i< ^•3ri=g<t3lt^i- ' ;P.C. is maiutamed. However, fhfc siabstaatiye senteiice awmded bjy^tte Court is modiBed uiidei^one by fhe applicante &r each ofFence and to a fine of R]s.l,000/- for each offeace under Section 452 and 323 I;P.C. i^nx^ in. default pf paymeiit of fine to ..:.:1"1 uadei^o simple» tiuprisonilaent ..(' deposited by fhe applicaats sh^ill t>e adjusted. Out of the fine acaount, Rs.5000/- shall be p^id to Sahdep, son of Nadurain, reaidenf of Bihava Para, P.$. Ehidhflwa, Dist./ KaBker as conipeasatKui. ^ for 3 inorith8< '- ^»>- ft»>.eA-<^e«-<.e- "iFine already, Sd-/' • Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judae [^ cipsi^