^ ^^ ^^ ? -J- ^ CF000005a324~ v m IH Tffli HIGH (oaa'r OF 'MaBHIA'PBADESH AI .TAEAIiFBa G3.APBEALBO. ^. 15 ^<S^ "QF 1995. Motiraia-^soa of Bevsirigh, /' • / ' - aged 6Q/'years, resifien'fc oi' / Ctia'a.&ani Q3.ov& Kolil.a, Pelice ,/' Sta-fcicn Supela'Bistrict Burg. APffiLUHT 7S Tm STAIE QFM.P. (IN JAIL) BSa'.QNEENT GEIMIH'AL APiSAL UfflaajaSCTIQff .374(2) Q? Sffi GRIbiIMA.L.BOCEEO&S G®E:_ -1> ff; '*>,- ' '^v, v^h. ^ :il!;>K;l--A 8 s» HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASWR Singie Bench : HonTsle Mr. Justice Pritinter &iwoter Criminai ADoeat No. 1544 of 1995 APPEOANT RESPON&6NT Motirom, son of Devsingh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh AAr. S.C. Vernna/counsel for The dppellant. Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL for the State/respondsnt. OIIMINAL AFPEAL UNDBt SECnON 374 (2) OF THE CO&E OF CRZAtfNAS. PROC6DURE JU&6M ENT (06.04.2011) 'This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.11.1995 pcssed by 5 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 6/1991 convicting -Hie accused/appeilcuit for the offence punishable under Sections 436, 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fiye years ond poy fine of Rs.500/- u/S 436, rigorous imprisonment for one year u/S 452, rigorous imprisonment for three months u/S 323 IPC, plus default stipulations. 2. Facts of the case in'brief are that on 23.2.1990 at about 3 p.m. F.I.R. (Ex.P-4) was lodged by Dasruram (PW-3) allegin9 thaton 22.2.1990 when he along with his mother and father were sleeping in the house, at aboutl^Z O' clock in the ni9ht, accused/appeltant and two other persons reoched there <md started hurling abuses. It is alieged that occused ,/ persons have as^wlted him ond his father and mother also and,thereafter, .they set his hut on fire. Based oji.thisFJ.R., offence under Sections 436, 452,i294 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused/appellant and other co-accused Panchram & Santosh Kumar. After completion of investiga+in chalhn was fited on 26.4.1990 by tiie poiice ynder Sections 436,452. 294 oind 323/34 of the Indkin Penal Code. ;':.'. •.-•^ J;; 3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charge's ievelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implicatiori in the case. This cpart, one witness namely Shyamlal (DW-1) has also been examined by •ttie defence in support of its case. 4. By the impugned judgment trial Court has acquitted -tiie co-accused persons nomely Santosh .Kumar ond Panchram for all -rfie offences whereas the accused/appellant has been convicted ond sentenced as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing 1+iis appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, at the time of commission of offence, the appellont was aged about 55 years cnd now is aged about 71 years and his physical condition is very bad and he is almost bad ridden^ that the incident took pbce about 21 years back and he has already remained in Jail for about 48 days, no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail and it would be in the inter-est of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period atready undergone by him. He further submits 1+)at appeltant is willing to compensate th&' yictim by poying odequate connpensation as may be directed. To this; counsel for th^ State has no serious objection. 7. i In view of above, the qspeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Appellont is now aged about 71 years and fhe physical condition of the appellant is reported to be bad, he has alreddy remained in Jail for about 1 month and 18 days and, .tnepefdr'e, in ths .peculiar facts and circumstances of the case his y sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the appellant is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the victim under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failure, if any, in depositing the amount before the trial Court within the period stipulated, would make the appeilant liable to be inside the jail for a period of six months rigorous imprisonment. —- Sd/- 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Pritinker Diwaker Judge '*»-