HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinke'r Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 2004. APPELLANT Durgesh Ghasiya VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh. Shri Sunil Sharma counsel for appellant. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. J U D G M E N T (17.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.8.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 152/2004 convicting‘the accused/appellant for the offencel‘punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21.7.2003 FIR (Ex. P-7) was lodged by complainant Navin Nayak (PW—1) alleging that on that day at about 6 a.m. when he was sitting in Kalbadi Chowk along with one Arun, accused/appellant came there and assaulted him with sword on his left forearm, elbow and middle finger. On the basis of this FIR crime No. 146/2003 was registered against the appellant for an offence under Section 307 IPC. The appellant was however tried for the offences-under sections 307 and 294 IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined O7 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the ,/" )1 case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the accused/appellant of the offences under Sections 307 and 294 IPC ._z.~ but convicted and sentenced the accused / appeHant for the offence under section 324 IPC. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 5. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his argL'lment to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the appellant is areputed person of Raipur town, that complainant himself has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile, that relations between the appellant and the complainant have become cordial and that the accused/appellant has already remained in jail for about 15 days, no usefut purpose would be served in sending him to jail and it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. To this, counsel for the State raising al'serious objection submits’that though the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution, one Dheeraj Deep (PW—3) who is one of the eyewitnesses to the incident has very much supported the same and therefore the sentence imposed by the Court below is just and proper and no leniency therewith is desired. 8. In the facts and circumstancesof the case, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Appellant is reported to have remained in jail for a period of about 15 days, and therefore his sentence is reduced to the period already. undergone by him. However, in lieu thereof, the appellant is directed to pay a‘fine of Rs. 5,000 out'of which Rs. 4,500 would be payable to the complainant within a period of three months from today. if this amount of Rs. 4,500 is not paid to the complainant within the time stipulated, the sentence awarded by the Court below shall stand restored. 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds “ Sdl- ?ritmker Di .