HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR -"i I ‘ r ‘>Ar r . , Single Bench: Hon’ble‘Shri Dilip Raosahéb Deshmukh. J. ‘ Criminél Aggeal No.1e4 of zoos Santosh Kumar Torle. S/o ;Panalal Vil§age-Samora, Torle, agedabout Thana-Uttai! 25‘ years; Distt. R/o‘ .Dgrg(CG) I Versus State of CG through P.S. Distt. Durg (CG) riminai a eal‘under‘ Section 87 ii ofthe Cr.P.> . C C. ounsel forthe appellant. ‘ Dy; Govt. Advocate for the Amellant In 'ail ~ Resgondent Phulgaori, Present: Shri‘ Ashok Predhan, ‘c ' ‘ Shri SudhirLBajpai, ' Stew/respondent. ‘ORALo’R .D‘ER ‘ (Passed on 28.02.2009) Heard finally to R.l.‘10 RJ. for years 3 years andalso and a also fme toa 'of Rs.5,000I- me ofgRs.1,000I- under Sectien under-Section 307 ‘lPCa'n 324 _ \ IPC and in default of payment of line, the appellant wassentenced to R.l. for 6 months and 2 months respectively. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (3) Ld coune'for h earne sl t ix» ”a . . w d '\ (4) The sole argument advanced by me loamed counsel for the “appellant in this appgal is that the sentence awarded by the trial Court is excessive and shoUId be reduced to‘the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant, who is in jail from 10.05.2004 till date. (5) On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Bajpai, learned Dy. Government Advocate argued that the sentence awarded by the learned tial Court Is adequate and commensurate With the offences committed by the , appellant (6) Having considered the rival submissions, l have perused the impugned judgment dated 16.10.2004 as also the. record of sessions ase No.147/2004. Considering the manner in which the appellant had inflicted injury on Peetamber, his brother-in—law and Shakum Bai, his mother-in-law by means of a sharp sickle and the nature ofgrievousl injuries sustained on vital parts by Peetambar and also the nature of injury sustained by Shakun Bai and the weapon of offences: l am of j the considered opinion that the sentence awarded by the trial Court is l wholly commensurate wrth the offences for which the appellant has been convrcted The appeal being devord of any merit rs accordingly, 1 x. '1 sw— dismissed DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH Judge H” l l ax 7V)? ‘ ,; ; tw‘r i c '