1 .. e3 4 m fHB H2QH @©UBT @P •i(I©3EAgl1?RBAT BIIASP0II (@,<3.) Cs^SBsvi.aleia N©,3^6 ©g2©Q2 (Menoean^aa ef epdniinal Revision ®/» 397/401 of Cr^P.G.) s^v&m^w ,{^ cw-imj-^^^ 'LM-S^SS- ^ ^..^' • 1»1 ©Itwcaas/o Jiaagaai»aged aboiat ^s^' cl' % l^ /^v 2* ®>Mld;klm»Ma a/a Qhuran IUBB •gred ov ^ ^ A ^ ..-N^0'' .^ '.<^>0' . ^'' ^^•yr^ <;•• L.o%^-'" ,<" 3^) ^cX^"" 7.-''' [^~..-y" ^ ^ ^ A N© .A%>L2iOAH'E aboafe 36 y^rs* 3» SB^^r Narayaa 8/0 ^iuieaa ag^l aibout 32 ywway Ml ffesidente of vUlage ^iaaglus'i thana Ainbil€aj»tr#©istri@1& Sarguja (€©)• Vei?»aa ^lae Steaf of Ghlaa^tiagaffh Shroa^la tbe ©iaferietMagisferafee Sargtaja (©3). MBM©RANBUM ©B" G8IM2NAL RBVS^I^ IM?®E% SEQTICN 397/4©1 ©^ -1 _L v^ ^;»' HIQH eOUICT OF CHHATTI8®ARHAT BILA8PUR SB : HOM»BLBMR. JU8TICB naTMUCBR DIWAKBR APPUCAHTS RBSKMIDBIIT CR.RBV.HQ.366/2CMMt Ghuraa & Othera versus State of Chhattisgarli Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the applicaiits, Shri A3dul Mislu-a, Dy. G.A. for the State. RBVISIOII UHDBRSBCnOII 397/401 OF THB CODB 02? aRIMIIIALPI ORDER (01.07.2011) This revision is directed ^gamst the jmpiig^ed oxdter dated 22.7,02 passcd by ffae 4^ Additional Sessions Jxidge, AtnbikapiM^ Sui^uja m Qr, A, No. 4/2002 affinning fhe judgment and oider dated 21.12.01 passed by fhe leamed Judicial Magistrate First Clasa, Ambikapiir m Cr. Case No. 521/2000 oonvlcting tiae accused/applicatits iinder SecttOB 326/34 IPC aad sentoading tliem to midergo RI for fhrce years aad to pay fiixe ofRs. 200 in defeiult of payment offine to furfher undergo SI for one monfh. 2. Facts of the case ia brief are fhat on 5.1.88, FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged by one Dhaifcharan (P.W,-1) aflegmg fhat a day before fkxereto ie- 011 4.1.88, when he was on fhe way to tfae house ofThdcar CSond^ accused/appUcaats abused hica aad when he forcboded fhem^ fhey caught hold of him and applteant No.3 Shiv Narayan @ Naaka assaulted hita wifh knife causiag several iajuries oa hia face ai»d he lost his teft eye. Based on tfais PIR offence imder Sectioa 326/34 IPC was rcgistered agaiast fhe accused/applicaiits, After toveatigatioB, challaa was fQed OK 20.01.88 under Section 326^34 IPC. ^^ ^ 3. In support of its case, tibie pix^secutlon has exaaiiaed as many as seven witaesses, Statenient of the apcused/applicaiits were also recorded under Section 313 of fhe Code of Crixniaal Rroeedure ia which fhey denied the charges leveled against tliem axid pteaded fheir iancwence anid false impUcation iii fhe case. 4. After hearing counsel for fhe partie^ by ftie impugaed judginent^ fhe trial Court has afBrmed the judgment of ftie appellate Court. Hence fhis revision, 5, Durmg the course of argument, it has beea informed by the counsel for fhe appMcaats that applicaiit No,l Glitiran has expircd and fherefore he is confiximg hia argument on behalf of aypMcaaite 2 & 3, Shri Sahu is permitted to delete fhe name of applicant No. 1 dxxring fhe course offhe day. It has been further argued by Shri Sahu fhat he m not px^ssixig tfais rcvision so far as it relates to fhe conviclion part offhe impiigtsed judgment and would coxifine his argument to tihie senteiice part thereof only. Accordiag to him, fhe ieicidexit ia said to have taken place ia the year 1988 ie, about 23 years back, applicant No»l h^& atoeady expired whereas fhe offaer two appMcaats ihiave aJready suffered a lot in last 23 years, He furtfaer szibmits fhat the moixliaate delay ia completion oftdalwas xaamly on fhe part offhe pxx>8ecution. He submits fhat complamaat Dharbharaii has also expired. Lasfly, it has been argued that fhe applicants 2 & 3 have already rcmamed te jail for aboiit 19 days, it will be too harsh to again seiid ffaem to jafl and it would be in the interest ofjustice iffbe sentexice imposed asi fhem is reduced to tfae period already undei^gone by ffaem. 6, On the oftier haad, opposiag tfafe submission it haa been argued by SIui Mishra fhat fhe act of fhese appttcaats was as such where no leniency should be shown to them and fhe seatence ixaposed by fhe trial Coiart is fuXty justified. 7. Considering the fact® and circumstances of the <»se, the conviction part of the impugned judynent is maintained< However looking to the fact that the incident had taken place m ffae year 1988, ff^ ^ '^igg^, i vl^w!w!t/ '53-. ie, 23 years backy flie fact tfaat fhe applicasits have already reiMaiaed in jaU for about 19 days, fhe revision is partty aBowed, Coxiviction part of the impugiied judgment is loamtamed, Appticazits arc rcported to have remamed ici Jail for a period of 19 days aiid fherejEbre fheir sentence is reduced to one year & six monfhs firom fhat oftJuee years, However^ m lieu thereoffhe fine imposcd by the Court below is enhanced to Rs. 7,500 in addition to that of R8. 200 inaposed by the trial Court, to be paid by each of fhe accused/appeUaxxts (total fiiie would be Rs. 15,400) wifhia a period of siK months firom fhe date of receipt of copy of fhis oxder. Failurey in doing so, would make the applicaats liable to be inside fhe jail for a period of ligoroixs iixiprisonment for one year, Revision thus parffy sncceeds- Pritinker Diwaker Judge