BEFORETIIE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ^89 /2oo6 Singfe Bcnch PELLANT .0.^^ &. ^ 'J'' RESPONDENT Mayadhar, son of Shri Chaitram, aged about 31 years, resident of viUage Kachkoba, P.S. Tamnar, <f.^ District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS State of CUfaattisgarh, through - fhe Station House OfBcer, p.S. Tatunar, District Raigarh (C.G.) CMMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374^1 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 ..(' Btl v-^./ sse/^~ 's'%iK?^v \y^' HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JU8TICB PMTINKER DIWAKER CR-A.NO. 589/2006 APPBULAMT RESPONDBNT versus State ofChhattisgarh Shri Abhijit Sarkar, counsel for fhe appcUant. Shri Ashish Gupta, P.L. for the State. APPEAL U/S 374«2iOF THB CRIMINAL PROCBDURE CODB JUDGMBNT (21.04.2011) The present appeal arises out of the judgment & order dated 30,11.05 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Session Trial No. 89/200S convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penai Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs. 500, in default of fine to further undergo RI for two months. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 2.7.05 FIR (Ex.P/lO) was iodged by injured Santram (P.W.-3) aileging that on that day at about 3.00 p.m, when he was in his house, accused/appellant came there and had asked for one cart-rope and when he informed him that he had given the said rope to one Itwari,'he got annoyed and after abusing him, assaulted hina by axe as a result qf which he sustained three injuries on his chest face and wrist. Based on this FIR, offence was registered against the accused/appellant under'Sedtion 307 IPC,. 3. So as to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelied against him and pleaded his innocence and false impli.cation in the case, ;.;i''\ ..-.-•.^ 4, After hearing counsel for the parties, the trial Court has convicted the accused/appelian.t under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. g^;'3::;'?8i' ^' ';": ""- 5. Contention of Shri Sarkar, counsel for the appellant is that he is not pressing this appeal so far as it relates to conviction p&rt ol' the judgment impugned and would confine his argument to the sentence part of the same only. He sujsmits that the appellant is in jaii sinee 3.7,05 i.e. more than five years & 9 months, is ncw aged about 37 years and having family responsibility. He further submits that the incident had taken place all of a sudden and there was no intentioa on the part; of the appellant to kill the deceased and therefore the jail sentence imposed on him be rcduced to the period already undergone by him. To this counsel for the State has no serious objection. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction part of the iinpugned judgment is maintained. However Isoking to the fact that the incident had taken place all of a sudden, the appellant is in jail since 3.7,05 and is now aged about 37 years and having the family responsibility, this Court is of the view that it wouid be in the interest of justice if the jail sentence iinposed on the accused/appellant is reduced to the period aSready undergone by him. 7. Accordingty, thc appeal is partly allowed. Jail sentence imposed on the accused/appellant is hereby reduced to the period already undei^one by him, The accused/appellant be set free forthwith if not required in any case. - „--—— ---——- Sd/- Pritinker Div/aker ' . . -•-.—'—- ^ :1»l(^l".- ' • "HMfe" .(