II CF0000057S74 •sa-' IB THE HI®I COU SS OF M&DHY6, PR6DESH A3* J&6&I,PUR " _.. .^(^H : CRIMIHAL APPEAL N0.^^ 1 Of 1994 r, &gpELIANE: °<v A^xii^ V IS'1 11 ""re"" I^^ft^'i'i^Da^RESPOHDEl-n'; /7 w^ -M CONVICIIQN U/S 324 of the Indian penal Code ^' './"..• " t-itw;. JagdisbS/o Shri Paran^ar sTaga-fc, Aged about 19 years, //•* ^,-.- R/o Ne^-r parena Taiab, '' , Eolice Station Civil Line's, Raipur (MP) t- -Versus- . The State of Maahya Pradesti Tbrough Station Incharge, E'olice Statioa Civil Lines, Raipar (MP) -SENTENCE y B..I. for 2 years &..'' fine of Rs. 300/- and failing which further S.I. for 15 days. - . < CRIMIN&I, ApPE&L UHDSK SECTION 374 (2) 0V THE_CODS_OF CRIinNiiL EROCEDURE, 1973 ..// m '^' HISH COURT OF CHHATTISSARH AT BILASPUR Slngie Bench ; Hon'bl®Mr. Justice No. 854 of \c\. RESPON&ENT Jagdish, s/o Shri Purandor .Jagat State of AAadhya Pradesh fnow Chhart'tisgarh) Shri AAazid Ali, counsel for the appellant. Shri Neeraj AAshta, PL for the respondent/State. CSIMIN^L APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CO&E OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JU SeMENT (31.01.2011) This appeol is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 17.6.1994 passed by 4 AdditionQl Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Tria! No. 432/1992 conyicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.300, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of Dehati Naiishi (Ex.P-1) dated 15.6.1992 lodged by victim Arjun (PW-4), F.I.R. (Ex.P-2) was registered against the accused/appeilant on the same day Itself under Section 326 aid 307/34 of the Indian Pena.l Code. It is alleged that over the dispute of ownership of the cycle, accused/appellant and his friend - Ludro (minor) first abused him and then thrown ch.illy powder on his eyes and thereafter, assaulted him with sward, as a resuit of which he sustained injuries on his head. After investigation challan was filed on 24.7.1992 against the accused/appellant and his friend Ludro (minor) under Sections .,. ;ai«a»^ ^« !;i ^sy3% r :^:'li l^ '^i?f./ / 326 and 307/34 of the Indian Penai Code. However. framing the charge, the court bejow ho.s fran'fed the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Pena.l Code against the accused/appei lant. 3. So as to hold to accused/appeliant guilty, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in support of its case, Statement of the accused/appellont was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge leveli'ed agasnst him and pleaded his innocence and fatse implication in the ccse. 4. After hearing the parties the triaf Court has acquitted the accused/Gppeiicint under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but has convicted and sentenced the accused/appel la.nt under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence this appeal. 5. 1-feard counsel for the parries and perused the niaterial availableon record including the iudgment impugned. 6. Counse! for ths appeiiant submits that he is not pressing this appeol as far as It retates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, now the appellant is middle aged person, that the incident took place in the year 1992 i.e. 18 years back, that the appeiiont has already remained in jail for about 4 months and 10 days, no usefui purpose would be ser'ved in sending him to jail and it would be in the interest of justice if the senterice imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by hirn. He submits that the fine amount as directed by the court below has / ^, clready been deposited by the accused/appellant. To this, counsei for the State has no serious ob iection. 7. In view of obove, the appea! is partly allowed. Conviction parf' of the impugned judgment is maintained. Appellant is repori'ed to have remained in jaii for four months and ten days, the fact that incident had taken piace about 18 years back, and, therefore his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, in lieu thereof, the sentence of fine is enhoinced to Rs.2,000/- from that of Rs.300/-. lant is stated to have deposited the fine of Rs-300/- by the court below. If that is so, the amount of Rs.300/- aiready deposited by the appellant is directed to be adjusted against fine of fts.2,000/-. In other words now the appellant would be required to deposit Rs.1,700/- as fine which would be pcc/able to the victim Arjun within six montha from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failure, if any, in depositing the amount within the period stipulated, would make the appeilmit liable to be inside the jail for G furt-her period of three months rigorous imprisonment. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge