HIGH COURT OF CHHATTQSGARH Ki' BILASPUR Sinqle Bench: Hermie Shri Dilip Raasaheb Deshmukh, J. Criminai lappeal No.1 26§2W2 Appeiiant Chhat Ram, aged about 22 years, S/o Babuia), resident of Jamunipaii, Thana-Dan'i, Dists'ict Karba (C.G.) VEfS U3 Respondent State of Chhatiisgarh. through P.S. Darri, Dislt. Korba (C.G.) Criminal Appeai under Seciion 374 of ihe Coa‘e of Criminai Proceciure Present: Shri Punit Ruparel, counsel for the appellant. Shri PRPatankar, Panel Lawyer for the $tate/respondent. GRAL JUDGMENT (Deiivered on this 26m day or March, 200m This appea! is directed against the judgment dated 04-01-2002 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba in Sessions Trial No.32i/1991, whereby the appellant Chhatram was convicted under Section 324 reae with Section 149 of the lndian Penal Code and was senteneed to rigorous imprisonment tor 2 & ‘A years and to fine of Rst ,OOGI- and in default to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 6 months. Fine awarded by the trial Court has been paid. 2. 8hri'Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the appeliant submitted at the very outset white arguing on this appeal that he would not assail the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the lndian Penai Code on merit but wouid argue only on the question of sentence awarded to the appellant. 3. Prayer is not opposed. 4. ln View of the submission, the appeal was heard only on the /. /// / / question of sentence. L 5. Learned cwnsel for ihe appeilant argued that the appellant is a young person without any criminal antece:ients and he is facing crimina! trial since 1991. Record of rhe Session Trial No.321/1991 was burnt and thereafter file was again re-oonstructed. The appellant was in jail from 24-09-1999 to 18-07-2000 for almost 10 months and thereafter from 06-07—1998 to 14-07-1998 for 6 days, 04-01-2002 to 06-03-2002 for \ almost two months and from 17-03-2009 to 26-03-2009 for almost 10 days. lt was prayed that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the appeliant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. ft 6. Shri P. R. Patankar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State did not oppose the prayer. 7. Having considered rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of evidence available on record and the period of incarceration already undergone by the appeilant, i am of the considered opinionthat it would serve the ends of justice, it the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the appellant is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. 8. ln the resuit, the appeal is partly ailowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the lndian Penai Code is maintained. However, substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is reduced to the sentence aiready undergone by him. L\ Sd/- “i Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukhl‘ J Judge , . fumane a 1