CF0000657K4' ^'^^rr^^ IN THB HISH GOURI OF M&B5XA FBABBSB : AT JABALF0B.. GRIMIH&L AP^SAL 1094. ^- c^ ^ .?:°' 'i^t.. ^ ->/ Rahaslal son of'Bhagela SatnaBJL aged 30 years, Besidant of villaga; Lawar, Poliee Station Masturl,'Distrlet Bllaspur (MF). Vs. Ihe S-bate of Madfaya (siSll AP LLABT (IM JAIX,) SBSKlBEEM. /.. CBIMIH&L APFSAL XiIHBEB SEGIBSN 374(2) OE-,EiE_GOm O? C&IMIBAL PROCEDtIBB . ~»»k- -"i. i y HIGH COURT QF CHHAmSGARH AT Stl.ASPVK. SB : HOWEL5 MR. JU8TICB PRITIMKER DIWAKBR CR.A.KO. 169 f 1994 Raaaslal versus State of Madhva Pradesh Shri Abnijeet Sarkar, counsel for fiie appeUaa.t. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, P.L. for fhe State. {22.06.2010} The pnssent appeal arises out of fhe judgiaent snd order dated 10.2.94 _ passed by the Addiuonsl Sessions J-adge, Bilaspitr in S.T, No. 94/93 whereby coD'i'ictmg fhe accilsed/appeUant for the offence punishable under Secti.Gi.1 436 of the IPC aad sentencing hiai to undergo RI for five years aa.d to pay fiae of Rs. 500, ia. default of payinent of fine to further undergo &I for fhree years. 2. Brief facts of fhe case are that on 26.6.92, FIR Ex.P/2 wa.s lodged by tlie coinplauiant Lachhai]. Bai (P.W. - Ij allegmg io. it fha.t on 25.6.2010, accused/appeUaitt aad. foiir ofher acquitted accused persons liave set their hutment on fire as a result ofwhich she has suffered inonetary loss ofRs. 500. After investigation, chaBan was filed on 17.9.92 again.st aQ tlie accused/ persons aad they were prosecuted for the ofiences under Sections- 147 & 436 and in altera.a.tive iuid.er Section 436/.149.0ffhe IPC. •'». 3. . In support of its c&se, the prosecution ha.s examiaed six wifDesses.'Stateiuent offhe accused perscns were also recorded underSection^313 of the Cr.P.C. in. which ftiev denied the ^ ' 11 I .A !"^ ^ igSSfe SislBSS^ g . JJ ^Sp-^^ "5CS"1'"' charges leveUed against them. aad pleaded their in.nocence and false implication tn fh.e case. 4. After hearuig couasel for the parties, fhe trial Court has acquitted fhe other four accused persons but has convicted the accused/appellaat for the offence under Section 436 IPC aiid has sentenced him as inentioned above. Hence fhis appeal. 5. Heard counsel for the psrties and perused fhe laaterial available on record including the irupugned judgment. 6. Contention of counsel for fhe appeBaut is that he is not pressing fhis appeal as far as it relates to conviction part ofthe impugned judgiaent and woilld confine his ai^uiiient to fhe sentence part thereof oaly. Accordiag to hJTn, as the appeUaii.t is now aged about 50 years', fhat th.e nicident is said to have takeu place in the year 1992 i.e. about 18 years back, t-hat fhe relation between the coiiiplaiaaiit and fhe appeUaat have again beconie cordial aad fhat he Iias already reinaiaed in jail for about one m.0nfh, no usefiil purpose would be served in. agaiii. sendiag huii to jail and it would be in the interest ofjustice if fh.e sentence iruposed on hini is reduced to fhe period atready undergone by him.. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. .•- 7. The fact tliat the incident had taken place ia the year 1992, ftie fact that the app.eUaut is aged about 50 years aad he .has ak-eady reiuained in jail for about one iiiontJi, the appeal is pardy aUowed. Conviction part of fhe impugn.ed judginent is inaintaip-^d. AppeUant is reported to have reniaiaed in jail for a period of one inonth aitd fherefore his sentence is reduced to ,s;^- -fhe period already undergone by hiin. However, iu lieu fhereof, fhe iiae of Rs. 500 iluposed by the trial Court is enhaaced to Rs. 2,500. Out.pf this amount ofRs. 2500, Rs.2000 be given to tlie -victim .AppeUaat is directed to deposit this ajnount withir!. a :<.''< ^.m E i. •'-••^.•y^ ^. ^' fl '^^-:.-;'' period of four laonths from. the date of i-eceipt of copy of this judginent an.d if this amount is not deposited by him wifhiti a period of five nionfhs from. today the appeUaa.t sliall undergo the sentence of one year. —- Sdl' Pritinker Siwakcr Judge -.«». •.'^