^,. IN THE HTGH GOUM OF M6BHYA PRADESM AT JABALPUR. ^ ~ CRJMINAL APPEAt No.^5l^of1994. APPELIANT RESPONDBIT y ' ' : Rainlsl %)R of Chaiti.iram Bhiinar,Sged aboi.it 50 years, cultlvatcr, resldent of Vlllage ^< tospur, PoMce Statlon Kanker, Distnct Basta -yersus- t . ' . •• ••'..•-- s'^he Ststeof Madhya Pradesh • .' APP&L UNOER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CRIMINAt PROCEOURE_ RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.06 12:38:09 +0530 ""^ Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justic®Pritlnker Diwgker Ramlal son of Chaituram Dhimar State of Mo.dhya Pradesh (no'w Chhattisgarh) Shri Abhijeet Sarkar, counse! for the appellant. Shri Neeraj Mehta, PLfor theState/respondent. CRIMINAL APPEAL UN&ER SECTEON 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JU D6M E NT This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 01.10.1994 passed by Special Judge, Bastar.at Jagdaipiur in Special Case No.. 01/1990 convictingthe accused/appellqnt for the offences punishable under-Sections 342 and 323 of the Indian Pena! Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for sixmonths in each pf the offences. Both th-e sentenceswere ordsred to runconcurrentjy. i 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is fhat on 25.9.1990 FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged by Amar' Singh (PW-1) dleging in it that on the some day at about 8 wn when he was taking tea in tlne house of one Aashram, at that^time accused/appellant reached there and had assauited him with the help of club/as a refiult of which he sustainsd injuries on his right ieg. It is furtlier dieged that the accused/appeilant took the compiainant aloif!g with him to his house and. has detained him for half an hcjur. After investigation the poliee has filed thechallan agairtst +He accused/appelicBit forthe Qffences punishab!e under Sectisras 194, 323, 342 of the Indlan Penat.Code and 3(i)(x) of-flie liti ";-T Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the charge sheet was also filed in respect of the same offences. 3. So as to hotd to accussd/appellant guiity, pr'osecution has examined 6 witnesses in support of its case. Sta+emsnts of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Ssc+ion 313 of ths Code of Criminai Procedure in which he denied ths cha''c)es levelied against him and pieaded his innocence and false implication in the co.se. 4. After hearing the parties ths trial Court has convicted i and sentenced the accused/appeliant for | the offences as mentioned above. However, has ccquitted hirn for the offences punishabie under Sectior, 3(i)(x) of the Schedu!ed Caste & Scheduied Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) and Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence this appeal. 5. Heard counsel for the parries and perused the materia! available on record inciudingthejudgment impugned. 6. Counsei for the appellcmts submits that he is not pressing this appeai as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and wouid confi.ne his argument to fh.e sentence part thereof oniy. AccoFding to him, as on dote;the appeilant is o.ged about 70 years, that the jncident isso.id;to haye taken place on 25,9.1990, that the relations betwesnithe complainant and the accused/appeilant have again become cordia! and that he has already remained in jaii about 13 doys, no useful purpose would beserved in sending him to jail and it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposepl|on -^lv him \s reduced to the period atready undergone by him. To this, counse! for the State has no serious objection. ^ 7.' In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Appellant is repori'ed to have remained in jail for a period of 13 days ar.d therefore his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Howeyer, in iieu thereof, the fine of Rs.1000/- in relation to each offence is imposed and out of th.is totai amount of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1500/- be given to the complainant/victim Amar Singh (PW-1). If this amount of Rs.2,000/- is not deposited in the court within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the -sentence awarded by the court' below shall stand restored. Appea! thus partly succeeds. ..'Sd/- pritinkerDtwaker Judge