AiS^'^F^^ IN THE HIOI COURI OF M.P. AZ JABSLPHR Cr. ^peal NoJ2^^of 1993. 'lln<)!(l 8«)chfCrimro»» ApBellaats s- (la Ja.i.l ) , 1. Dhanuk soa oE Bayal Satnand. aged 45 years. , • ~y ~ , / '2. Sahebdas soa of Oayal Satnani. ^ aged aboat 38 years; / 3otb r/o •sj.llage Magacaa P. S. Kawardha Distctct Rajnandgacn. ve r sa s Resoondant s- State o£ M.P. ^^.. -. ._.:• .^ Acpeal under sectiQn _374_Q^_the Cbde of cn.ni.nal Proaedure & g-%y HI6H COURT OF CHHArTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice PrrHnker Diwaker Criminal ApDeoil No. 1243 of 1993 APPEU-ANTS Dhanuk son of Dayal Satnami another. Versus RESPONOENT State of Madhya Pradesh Shri B.AA.K. Bajpai, counsel for the appellants. Shri Vivek Shamra, Panet Lawyer for the Stote. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 f2) OF THE CO&E OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE J U & ©M E N T (1407.2010) Present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment aid order dated 15.12.1993 pcssed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh in Sessions Triat No.177/1992 whereby convicting the accused/appellants under Section 325/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Perial Code cmd sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, on each count plus default stipulotions. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 22.9.1992 at about 9.30 pm F.I.R. (Ex.P-3) was !od9ed by Babulal Satnami (PW-3) alleging in it thcrt on thcri' day at about 7.00 pm present app6llants and two other accused persons Kunwar Das & Komak Oas have assciulted Rajarom (PW-1) & Manc Bai (PW-2) with •- / thCtbelp ofdub.It is further alteged that the incident had taken plqce just opposite to the house of appellant No. 1 bhanuk. After inyestjgorf'ion, chaltan was fiied by the prosecutrix on 25.11.1992 for the offence under Sections 147,148,149,294, 506 (part II), 323, 324, 325 and 307 of the '.Rictiah Penat-Code and the court- below has framed the charges wi ra'3' '" .f:!:itk> .^alfc* against 5 accused persons nameiy Dhanuk, Kanhai, Kunwar, Kanak <S Sahebdas under Sections 147, 294, 307 in a!ternative 307/149, 307 in alternative 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. So cis to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses in supporl' 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 tevelled against them ond pteaded their innocence and false implication in the case. Apart from this, witness nomeiy •Jugort'ram (DW-1) has a!so besn exomined by the defence in support' of its cose. 4. By the impugned judgment dated 15.12.1993, learned Sessions Court has aequitted the accused persons namely Kanhai, Kunwap <& Kanok of al! the offences but has conyicted the present accused/appellants under Section under Section 325/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Pena! Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, on each count plus defautt stipulations. v 5. Heard counsel for the parf-ies and perused the moterial availabieon record jncludingthejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellcrfits 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, now both the accused/qppellants are aged about 62 years ond 55 year-s, respectively, thot the appeilants hove remained in jail for about one month, that the incident is said to have token place in tts®year 1992, no usefyl purpose would be served in sending :fhCTB to jail .and-it would be in the interest of justice if the iil . % a .$ 3 sentence imposed on them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. To this, counse! for the State hcss no serious objeetion. 7. In view of above, the appeal is part-ly allowed. Conviction part' of the impugned judgment is maintained. As the appellants are reported to have remained in jail for about one month, in the peculioiT facts <& circumstances of the case their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. In jieu thereof, as per the provision of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appellants shall pay a comperisation of Rs.10,000/- to each of the victims namely Rajaram (PW-1) & Mana Bai (PW-2) in addition to the fine as has been imposed by the trial Court- within five months from the dote of receipt of copy of this order. Failure, in doing so, wouid make the appeflants liable to be inside thejail for a period of six months rigorous imprisonment. 8. Appeai thus party allowed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge '!^^i;:?':rj?i';j°!if:s^?!Sii'';'s;':'i S";^;?'i -'si:^:^M?'yi