^ 'l: I- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR rss: APPELLANT (in iajl) RESPONDENT Hon'bieMr.Printinker Diwaker ,J.1 Cr.AppealNo. 520/1991 Mahetaru, son of Shri Charan Satnami, aged about 16 years, R/o Teiipara, Poiice Station Civii Lines, Dist. Bilaspur VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh through S^ation House Officer, Police Station - Civil Lines, District Bilaspur (now Chhattisgarh) Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava forthe appellant. Mr. Vaibhav A Goverdhan, PL for respondent/State APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3740F THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORAL JUDGMENT (03.03.2010) The present appeai arises out of judgment and order dated 30.05.1991 passed by the 5 Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 213/89 convicting the accused/appellant and the deceased/accused - Tingu alias Ram Narayana for the offence under Section 307 and 307/34 of the I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.i. for 5 years. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 22.05.1988 F.I.R. Ex.P.1 was iodged by Baisakhu P.W.1 (complainant) alleging therein that on 22.05.1988 he was assaulted by the deeeased - Tingu @ Ram Narayana with a knife, as a result of which, he sustained stab injury on his stomach. It is also alleged that at the time when the co-accused Tingu had assaulted him, the appeliant Mahetaru had held his neck. 3. In supp'ort of its case, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. Stqtement of the accused/appellants was |also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in whictfi'they denied the charges leveiled againstthem and pleaded their innocenc^ a'nd faise implication in tSiie case. During the pendency of the appeal, appe|lant - Tingu @ Ram Naray^na had lissSsaSI.SiSii^.^ ^ ^R:. ^s^vms^^uSMsM^i^ t. @ expired, and therefore, the present appeal confines only in respect of appeilant - Mahetaru. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellants for the offences as mentioned above. 5. Heard learned counsel. for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not challenging the convi.ction partof the present appeal. However, looking to the role attributed to him and the fact that the appeilant has already remained in jail for about 6 months, he be set free after reducing the jail sentence to the period already undergone by him. He further submits that the appellant is willing to compensate the complainant—Baisakhu by paying reasonable amount. , f . • 7. On the other hand, it has been arguied by Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, PL for the State that the manner in which the appeliant has helped the main accused - Tingu in assautting the complainant, no leniency can be shown to him and the sentence is strictly in accordance with !aw. 8. Fromperusalofthestatementofcomplainant—BaisakhuP.W.1,itis clear thatthe accused caught holdof his neck and thereafter co-accused - Tingu @ Ram Narayan (since deceased) gave hjm a knife blow on his stomach, as a result of which, he sustained injury. The complainant P.W.1 was medicaily examined by Dr. A. Sen P.W.8, who found the following injury: One incised wound of 1", transverse in direction just right side of middle line in stomach, 7" below Xiphisternum. Depth could not be assessabie because of oozing of blood. It is also clear from the record that victim Baisakhu P.W.1 was operated by Dr. D.R.Patle, P.W.13. His;Medical report is Ex.P.15. The comptainant was hospitalized for about 1Q days. ]t is further clear from the evidence that the only role which has beeni attributed to the present appellant is that he catight holdof the neck of Bajsakhu and thereafter co-accused Tingu @ Ram Narayan (since cteceased) ^ave a knife blow on the stomach of. Baisakhu. -J- @ 9. Considering the totality of the fact, in particular, that the appellant is not chailenging the conviction part, the role attributed to the appeiiant, the fact that the incident had taken place about 22 years back, this Court is of the view that the conviction ofthe appeilant is liable to be maintained. 10. Accordingly, conviction part of the judgment impugned is hereby maintained. So far as sentence part of the appellant—Mahetaru is concerned, it is informed that-the appellant has already remained in jail for about 6 months. In this view of the matter, the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced from 5 years to the period of.one year. However, in iieu thereof the appellant is directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, out of which, Rs.9000/- shall be payable to the victim - Baisakhu. Let this be done within a period of three months, failure in doing so shall lead to restoration of the sentence imposed bythe Courtbelow. 11. Appeal is thus partly allowed. Sd/-^ Pritinker Diwakar Jiidge