Cwr Ray H» égg/Oé m m 1n 200 WWW ammémam‘wi mm (W) WWW WW wW %:a1‘fawem%¥1 E : H§i€’§lE §H§i T)‘ TREii$RA Mi§ITRA :& - Shri AK. Athaiey, , Ad te for the applicant. Shri Piadoep Singh, Pan 1 Lawyer for the State. This revision is directe against the judgment dated l4—1i~ 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 49/ 2006 whereby the appeal preferied by the appellant against the judgment dated/ —2006 passed in Criminal Case No. 443i 2003 by the Judicial Ma istiate First Class, Raigarh has been partly allowed and appellant h s been convicted under Section 3'25 of LEG. instead of Section 325/ 4 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three mon s and fine of Rs. 8000i -, in default of payment of tine, to further undergo R.l. for 8 moths. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Satyawan has been acquitted from the charges on the same set of evidence available on record aind to that extent the judgment of the appellate Court is illegal. S J. v a 2 4 APPLIC‘Aii'T‘ dag shwar alias Jage Sao, son of Din andhu Sac, aged about 42 years, occ pation cultivation Rio Tarda, Poiice Srta 'on Pussora, DistL Raigaih (CL‘n) Vs. *RESPGIH’DEE‘T‘ Sta of Chhattisgarh, through Distlict Ma 'strate, Raigarh (C.G.) 31-7-2t’50‘7 XI-HC 78 Qgfilavr WW Ta 200 WW,W,W $MLQ93 Gé DHmENDRA MISHRA Judge