""•»!! '»:; .•^^^^^•^ru^^^-^--.^^^^'^^-^^^^^ ;:; -''.:,':-" :'~. CF000005a37? "^:.. lh|to Ifcfc «&aiui^ -Tiffi-HIGH^COTRT-o!LMA ''A PRAIESH.AT JaPALPUR ' :~~""'' APPELLANTS Crimi.nal ^ipeal No. \^?> 7-6/^995 1 Sukhu Ram son of Anoopran Safaa ageiS about 54"years 2 Ifcwarl.allasBhoklu ^" son 6-f SuKhuram Sahu, aged about 26 years \^ r'^ RESPONISNT B3th resldents of villacie Aadl, P.S. Kanker, Dlstrl.ctTBastar Versas / •^ State of Hadhya Pradesh/ .&?fs -<^ t^':^^^?^ C^J~V'&:S^^ R.loD.fc^^o' •^^s^' ^y^r^:^ ^vSS3Ea^^wiaa^Sdi^ s»'-t"I*r«.' K.NP ^ 3^|-§^^.ff^ •«»- £;& itek: HIGH CQURT Of CHHATTISGARH_ATBILASPUR E MR. JUSTI: Versus Sukhu Ram & Another Sis.te of Ivlsdh-vs. prs.cissh {r Shri Sunii S&hu.'counsel ibrthe £ooeiiants. R^r^ 'r\.?"-?,-ay .;3';-,si"<—CT O T -"^^ ..-t-,^ ^<-,-,f.^ APPSAL_UNDBR,SBCl']:ON3'74(2LOrTHBCB:,P.C.^ JUD6MEST ^5.02.20111 The pi-esent anoeal arises out of the iudgraent, and order dated 23.9.95 oassed bv the AdditiDnas Sessions Judse, Ka^iker in Sessions Trid No. 310/1991 convicting the'accusfed/aopeilants for the offence oiinishabie under Section 324 /34 of the IPC ana sentenc'ng apaeliant No. 1 ta undergo RI for three vears Sn one vear with fine of Rs. 500 & 250, i;i defauk of fine :o further undergo RI ibr three months 8s one month respectively whereas aentencing apQellant No.2 'to undergo Ri ibr 2 years Ss one year wit.h iine of Rs. 500 8s 250. in defauit of fine to further undergo RI for three months and cne month resuectiveiv. 2. Brief facts of the.'case are that on 30.06.91., F!R 'Ex.P'l; was recorded by the police constable after receiving informa'-ion from the hospital that on that day at a.bout 6.30 a.m. accused/appeliaRt assauited Nathuram ^?.W.-2S and Makhanlal (P.l'i'.-l! on account o; some land aigoute. On the basis of this FIR offence under Section 307/34 of the indian Penai Code was registered against the accused/appellants. After investigation,^/ chailan was filed on 13.8.1991 aeainst the "^ / ' accused/appeilanfa. . 3. In support of its Gase, the prosecution has examined as ma.ny as ten •rt'itnesses. Statement of the accused / aooeliants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminai PrQcedure in which they denied the charges ieveied against them and pleaded their innocence and false -lEaBUcation in Uie case. . -:4, • . Ai'ter hearing cbunsel for the Darties, the tnal Court has acQuitted ..the accusec;l/:appellants of the charg.e under Section 307/34 of the Indian v'w^ '%. By,;:^'k i, K"(iJ3E3^»S I1s Penal Code but has conyicted theni under Section 324/34 of the ;FC and sentenced them as mentioned a.bove. FIence this appeal. 5. Shri Sahu, coiinsei for the appeUants submits that he is not pressing the appeal as far as it reiates to con\'iction oart of the impugned iudgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, as the appeliants ai-e now aged about 74 years & 46 years, that the incident had takeh place in the year 1991 i.e, about 20 years back, that the a.ppeilant is having' family responsibiiity and that they have already remained in jaii for about three months, no i.iseft.il purpose would be senred in again sending them to ia.il and it would be in the interest of iustice if the sentence impossd on them is reduced to the oeriQd ali-eady undergone bv them. He submits that thev are wiiiing to compensate the victims bv paving reasonabie comoensatian. To this, counsel for the Sta^e has no senous obiection. .- • 6. In the facts and cii'cumstances ot' the case- the apoea.i is partiv ailowed, The c'onviction pait of the impugned iudgment is Eiaintained. The apoellaiits are reoorted to have'remained in iaii for about three raonths and the incident ha.d taken pla.ce about 20 vea.rs back, sentence imoosed on them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine imposed by the Court beiow is enhanced to Rs. 5000 in addition to that of Rs. 750 imposed by the tria! Court, to be paid by each of the accused/aopeUants tQtal iine would be Rs. 10.000i. Out of this total fine amount of Rs. 11,500, Rs. 5000 ea.ch would be payable to each of the injured persons w'ithin a period of three months from today. Failure. in doing so, would make the aopellants iiable to be inside the iaii for a period of rigorous irRorisonment for five months. —- AoDea! thus, partiv succeeds. ^ . „ Sfl' Pritinker Siwaker /' Judge -ns.