CF00000573-15 JS THS HIOH COUST OF .DIHS ERAOESH ff JABMOTR GffIMIBAL APPEtL HO.l / ' -•- /'_ - / Pabaru, son of Bhansai ladav, / ^" aged $7 years, resident oS village Salkhaa, Folice Sta-bion Shaorinarayan, iSistric't Bilaspur* ^? QF 19$>l ..APPEUAMT ?EBS!S State of Madlya Pradesh. ..J^^POIBSiT APP.Sa.L TSSEB. SBCIIOB 374(2) OF THE ce& aF CKmmM,. KiOGSDUKii; i!:savs^ lalil HI6H COURT OF CHHATriSSARH AT BILASPUR >ingie Bench : Hon'ble tt.r. Justice Pi''itiriker Diwaker Crimina! ApDeaJ No.927 of inaru son State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Arun Kochor, counse! for the oppeliont. Shri Vaibhav (Soverdhan, PL for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UN&ER SECTtON 374 (2) OF THE CObE OF OR DER (21.04.2010) Present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment order dated 20.9.1991 pcssed by Additionai Sessions Jud( Biidspur (camp Janjgir) in Sessions Triat No. convicting the accused/appeiiant for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code ond sent®ncin9him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. is that on 28.3.1987 FIR Vi'shambhar (PW-7) 9 am, there wois some llant cnd his sons, upon by him mid out of anger complainant with the help two injuries on his 2. Case of the pr-osecution in (Ex.P-12) was iodged by complainont/victim alieging in it that on that doy at dispute between the son of the which the appellant's son wce scol the'a<?cused/appe!tant assaulted of axe, as a resuit df- which he head including two fractures. | 3. So css to hoid to accused.foppe.!lant guilty, prosecution h.as exqmined as many as 13 wi^nesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/adpellant was aSso recorded under 2 •:i;s, '^? Section 313 of the Code of Criminat Procedure in which he denied the charge levelied agai.nst him ond pjeaded his innocence and false imptication in the case. 4. After hearing the po.rt'ies the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accussd/appeltant for the offe.nce as mentioned above. Hence this appea!. 5. Heard counsel for the po.rt'ies cmd perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appetiant submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it reiates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and wou!d confine his ar-gument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, as per the chalian, at the time of commission of offence, the appellant was aged about 62 years and now is aged about 85 yeors, that the incident is said to haye taken place about 23 years back, that the physicat condition of the appeliant is very bad and he is almost bad ridden, incident ho.d taken piace all of a sudden on account of the quarrel of children of the complainant cmd that of the appeilait and he has already remoined in jai! for about 6 months, no useful purpose woutd beserved in sending him to Jo.il and it would be in the intsrest of justice if the ^entsnce imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone,.by him. He further submits that appejlant is willing to compensate the complainont/victim by paying adequate compensatlon as may be directed State has no serious objection. To this, counsel for the i 7. In view of above, the appea! |s part'ty ailowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is r^aintained. AppeHant is now aged o.bout-BB.yeQrs, he is reported to ho.ye remained in jail , , , ^^:! for about six months, incident had taken p!ace on a spur of moment on account of triyial issue ond ther-efore his sentence is reduced to the period aiready undergone by him. However, in tieu thereof, the fine of Rs. 5000 is imposed upon the accused/appellant aid out of this airiount Rs.4,000/- shal! be given to the complainant within a period of three months from the dort-e of receipt of copy af this order. Fai'ure, if any, in depo-siting the amount within the period stipuiori-ed, would make the appellant liable to be inside the jail for a period of three months rigorous imprisonment. 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. &/- ^^•^I^JN