y y y .^' ^- '^ %• Vl^ -^'^ v^ ^'•o ^i ^ r §• -3. g vq'" ^ ^\^ ^v I? ii ^ EJ^ ^ 3J -^:, .^^. ^r2^to ^^ ^p ^ 1^ 3 -^ 0] JJ -I rf S ^ .3 1'5 3 3 I ^ ^s ? ^j ^ ^f 3J ^ <r^ ^0(I N2s0< ^ Hi ^ 'IA .!t<fc?! '• !» ?l o' .!\ o •-0 4s- n II ^ H^'i-F' .- ^ ^^<-<^ ^"\ si •'/T<^!" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal AppealNo. 62 of 1994. APPELLANTS RESPONDENT VERSUS Manrakhan and another State of Madhya Pradesh. <9, Shri Malay Bhaduri, counsel for appellants. Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (26.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.12.1993 passed by Additionai Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, in Sessions Trial No. 347/1991 convicting the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC andsentencing each ofthem to undergo rigorous jmprisonment for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 3.11.1990 FIR Ex. P-13 was lodged by complainant Rajaram (PW-5) alieging that on the previous night when he had gone to keep watch on the crop standing on his field, accused/appetlants came there armed with axe and club and assaulted him as a result of which he sustained injuries on his body. On the basis of the said FIR, investigation was done and the appellants were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, one Hemlal Sahu (DW-1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the accused/appellants of the offencp under Section 307 IPC but ^) —2.— convicted and sentenced them for the offence punishable under section 324/34 IPC. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the appellant No.1 is aged more than 65 years whereas appellant No.2 is aged about 47 years, that the incident had taken place in the year 1990 on account of some trivial dispute, that the accused/appellants have already remained in jail for 42 days, no useful purpose would be sen/ed in sending them to jail and it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. 7. Inthe facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Jail sentence imposed on the accused/appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the accused/appellants shall pay fine of Rs. 2,500 (i.e. 1,250 by each). Out of this fine amount of Rs. 2,500, Rs. 2,000 shall be payable to be the complainant. If the fine amount as directed is not deposited in the trial Court within four months from today, the sentence imposed on them by the trial Court shall stand restored. 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge Qp^