';:,'^fe'^-":-' \ \ 's ^jft VS9h W aafey^4A is^bUat.le JL^ItL&-tfl!^j. •AliUa JZUt feSlA ^ a^ : | (qfttfa) UR^B - J^j. (^Ba-Udt» tlfifciata&-^tN4 ^ah £^-tl£ lJSfp.& t.lltt.fatS-tolMAIB ht»ft(*M8 : J^baJE ,/ -i-1' • . :. . '. '" ' .: 3>^» AJt | h ^ aSMA lA§UtetK *S<dJLli fafitMha fe-S N^1^ '• '-^'K fft:- 1.6ZASOOOOOJO ~<^.^^~^'r^^^-^^^--f^ S^'''ff11^ ' "^as. %>. "a ''>iai!!;lSI<'" ^m^e.ARH AT BILASPUR Sir^Je Bench ; Hon'bte ffi.r'. Just'ee PritiRker Di'woker Appe"! No. 241 of 1991 JaQdishram son cf Sadhanr'cro Uraon Versus RESPONDENT The State of Madhva Prodesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Bhupendra Singh, counse-1 for the o.ppe!!or!t. iharmoi, Panei Lawyer for the State. UNDE8 SECTION 374 f2) OF CRIflAINAL PROCE&URE OR & ER (13.04.2010) Present appea! arises out of the impugned judgment o.nd order datsd 22.02.1991 passed by First Additiona! Sessions Judge, Sarguja ot Ambikapur in Sessions Trial No. 59/1990 conyictlng the accuse-d/appe!!ant for the cffence pur'ishab'e under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, and pay fjne of Rs.200, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigor'ous imprisonment for two months. Ca.se of the Drosecution in brief is that on 11.12.1989 FI15 c.P-1) wo.s lodged by Vo.rlsh Khon (PW-1) o.ileging in it thot on day when he was in th®market, ong Qayurn K'hon came to and h.ad informed that the accused/appellant has set the Mosque on fire. It is o.l!eged that thereaftsr he went to the where Su'eman (PW-3) and Foreed Husso.in (PW-5) have liven the details of the incident to him ond have aiso informed that it is the. accused/appellant, who se-t the- W.osque ^ /?. 5- o ^s*%. ^. ^ ^..// E!E,^ 3. So as to hoid to accused/o.ppel!ant guil+y, prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses in support' of its case. Statement of the accused/appe!!ant was aiso recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in whic-h he denied the charge leyetied against him cind pieaded his innocence and fojse implication in the case. 4. After heoring the parties the trial Court has convicted ond sentenced the accused/appe!!ant fqr the offence as mentloned above. Hence this appeat. 5. Heard counsel for the part-ies and perused the materiai availableon record includingthejudgment impugned. 6. Counse! for the o.ppellants submits thcEt he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction port' of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part- thereof onty. He submits that as per the statements of the so-caiied eye witnesses no/nely Suleman (PW-3) and Foreed Husso.in (PW-5), hay which was lying near the Mosque wos set on fire by the accused/appellant but unfort-unotely one of the port-ion of the Mosque also got burnt. He submits that even the prosecution has not pointed out os to what fincnciat loss h.as been caused by the accused/appettont to anyone. He submits that there ore material contradictions and omissions in the statements of these witnesses, oippellQnt is a very poor person, incident had taken place on 11.12.1989 i.e. about 21 years back, appellant is a middle aged person, appellant has already remained in Jail about 6 doys, relotions between the complainant cind the accused/appellont agoin become cordiat, no usefu! purpose wou!d be served in sending him to jail and it would be in the interest of Justice if ^ntence ,,J.: % •- 3 ,vy.--'-^'-!y., "••.^. '' "s^( ^.^•^ '*» -;;^..,. imposed on him is reduced to the period aiready undergone by him. To this, counsel for the Stat®has no serious 'ion. 7. In view of above, the appeal is partly oJlowed. Conviction part' of the impugned judgment is maintained. Appsltant is report'ed to haye remained in jail for six days, is now middle aged person, relatlons between h.im and the complainCTnt pari'y are reported to be cordial, and therefore, his sentsnc® is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However. in !ieu thereof, fine of Rs. 200 imposed by the trial Court' i-s enhanced to Rs.1,000/- . If this amount of Rs. 1,000/- is not deposited before the court beiow within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, appellants shall undergo the rigorous imprisonment of four months. ly succeeds. Sd/- PIUTINKERDWAKER