•• w ..>..*.*il W-'S"? fe^ f^EBS^t?i^;^>;"^^<r^^'<;;"S??^¥;:;S\S?a$^s'.'^^..r;%S^S' f s^ :^/- ^M^ ::^^® ::^i'i>?5:/;: ^tSW :)r''iS^ ."?''-•?%*. ."'(. ^B^ ^il;: \ ^ ^ ay^ w-y: J> • Oi<^ -? .:.-4S;: ^';* BfHaMUtBNMn CF0060059021""" j ' ~ - " ^ F//l/-', •• %BS IH •TH2;:HIGH: COIJHT^BF MACIKA PRAJ3ESS :At'::<J'.AB'&ffitM|g ^l1^.^^ :iS;«* ^ e^^"^'; CRIMINA.L App IPP EA L N0... ^'..1f... : OE 19911 9 3 '-•^ "I-»: AMABSIMGH<son ,bf pyj eri: Rawal;, age(a 25 years, Labourer* /' " 2.-EUNWAS SAI,' son of Pujeri Bawst.,? s&ed •/' atiout 30' years, Labourera/ : ' ;3«. .:LfrLSIH5.B^son,,of pujsri .Rawat, age& abpat ^ •28:'years, Lsbourer. , - , ,..':— ^i • resideat.of Sifcil, ,Pa]-i(3ih, p.S*'pathaj.&ao%y Oistrict Bai&arh /......... _&pPELL»:NT&_^;:,:;• 'j'ersu; •ssm Th'e. State ;of Madhya Fradesbs-: - ^ ^ss'D0ndei;'fr ,.A£Pfi^^B .SEGTI®.,37^.^^^^3®®^ 'ER6eEDlIBB_CCS&.; - : • ••;: /- ^'^A!.;:^=i®g WS"-SW^s3SS ^S&atiSSI lif'F l:1!:1- ^'1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUR SingSe Bench : Honbte Mr. Justice Pritinker Crimina! Apoeal No. 1095 of 1991 APPELLANTS RESPONESENT Amarsinah and others. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now (-bhattisgarh) Shri Sanjay Agrawd, counsel for the appellants. Shri U.K.S. Chandel, PL for the State/respondent. CRIMINAL ^PPEAL UNbER SECTION 374 OF THE CO&E OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JU DSME NT (15.02.20103 This appeai is directed against the impugned judgment dated 6.12.1991 passed by 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 37/1991 convicting the accused/appella"ts for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323/34 of ths Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, respectively for each offence. All ths sentences were ordered to run separately. 2. COSQ of the prosecution in brief is that on 19.10.1990 FIR (Ex.P-7A) was lodged by Pitamber (PW-6) alleging that on account,.' of some oid one Veer Sai (PW-7) were assajttea by three accused persons namely Amar Singh (since deceased), Kumar So.r| and La! Singh. It is alleged that accused Lal Singh gave on axe b!ow to Veer Sai (PW-7) whereas accused Amor Singh gave .a iathi blow to Pitambar .^ri^l^I^n^^Q^^j^^ .•.•f^" (('••' (PW-6). In the incident Vesr Sai (PW-7) has suffered foliowing injunes ;- (i) One incised wound over the skul! above 4" from route of nose in the size of 5" x i" bone deep. (ii) One contusion in the border of right scapula vertical in the size of 3">;1/2" 3. So as to hoid to accused/dppeliants guilty, prosecution h.as examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appeliants were a!so recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded th.eir innocence and faise implication in the case. 4, After h.ear'ing the part'ies the tria! Court has conyicted cuid sentenced the accussd/appellants for the offences as mentioned abovs. 5. During the pendency of the present appeal, appellant No. 1 Amar Singh has expired and, therefore, the present appeal confines only in respect of appellants No. 2 and 3. 6. Heard counsel for the pari'ies and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugnsd. 7. Coun^el for the appellants submits that he is not pressing this 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, as the appeilants are young boy, aged about 28 years - 30 years, that the ihcident is said to have taken place in the year 1990,that the K il ^ ? t -+ nature of injury suffered by the injured persons were simple in nature and that the appellants No. 2 & 3 have already remained in jail about 18 days, no useful purpose wou!d be served in sending them to jail and it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on them is reduced to the period aiready undergone by them. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. 8. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Appe!!cmts No. 2 and 3 are reported to have remained in jail for a period of 18 days and therefore their sentence is reduced to ths period olready undergone by them. However, instead of any further jail sentence, fine of Rs.1,000/- each upon the appellants are imposed and out of which Rs.500 - 500 wou!d be payable to both the injured persons. This be done within three months from the date of receipt of copy of th's order. If the amount is not deposited within three months, the appellants sho.il under^o entire sentence as imposed by th.e Court- below. 9. With the above directions, the appeal stands partly dlowed. SlfA Pritinker Div/aker Judge .