APPELLANT IN JAIL IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHXA PRADESH AT JABALPUB. CR. APPEAL No‘ 8e?! of 1990 APPELLANT . ACCUSED (IN JAIL) V Rajendra Kumar Nigamg son of R.P.Nigam, aged 18 years, Kayasth, Street No ?9 187/%g T wnship, Raahara ($ili Rajha#a) Poli e btation hajhara, dlstrict Durg. Vs Rh$PONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh $PPEAL UNDER DECTLON 5?4 OF EHL CODE OF CnIMIVAL P&OCEDUPV‘ 3r# /V _ ”I , H CONVICTION3~ UNDEB $ECTION ‘50? IPC SENTENCE}; R I for 7(aeven) years and ‘” ‘ fine of %. 2000 1n default R l for oné year / J HIGH C$URT OF CHHATWSGARH :§'§' 83Lé$§u¥§ {58: Han’bie MLPrintinker Diwaker Lag Cf. Appea! No. 80W? $399 Rajendra Kumar Nigam _ ‘7 APPELLANT £ccu§efj {in gaiig VERSU$ State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) RE$PQNDENT Mr. A.K.Prasad, counse! for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Shiivastava, PL for respondent/State w ‘ APPEAL UNDER 8ECT!DN 374 OF THE CODE QF CRIMINAL PRGCE§URE - QRAL JUDGMENT (24.e2.2e1 a) This appeai i$ directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 08.0%.1990 passed by the 3rd Additionai Sessians Judge, Durg in Sessions Triai No. 48/1 988 convicting t‘ne accused / appellant for ihe offence punishable under Section 307 of the l.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and tine of Rs.2000/— in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that ”59.12.1937 F.l.R. EX.P.3 was lodged by one Vijay Kumar alleging that on that clay at about 7.30 PM. when he and his friend — Sharad Kumar Jaina (injured P.W.3) were returning from the school after watching annual function, near Central Library, the accused appellant had cailed the victtm Shared Kumar Jaina and then assautted him with the knife, as a result of which, Sharad Kumar Jaiha sustained two stab iniuries on back of his body and on his ieft side of shoutder. 3. So as to hoid the accusediappellaht guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the accused appetlant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘thewgodeh in whioh he denied the charges leveied against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. a;“ h.u After hearing the parties, the triai Court has convicted and $entenaed the accused / appellant for ihe offence as mentioned above. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Heard leamed counse! for the parties and perused the materia! available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing thie appeal as far a5 it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof oniy. According to him, the incident had taken place because the victim SharadtKumar Jaina (P.W.3) used to eve tease the sister of the accused 1’ appeliant. He submits that present is an untoxtunate’incident but at the relevant time the accused V was a young boy of 18 years, and therefore, there is every possibitity that out of anger, the accused may have assaulted the victim as the sister of the accUsednNas reguiariy eve teased by the victim. He further submits that the incident had taken place in the year 1987 and the appeltant has already remained in jail for 2 years and one month, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail again. He submits that the appellant was released on bail by this Court and has not misused the said liberty. He also submits that the appellant has a clean record to his credit and is working as driver and somehow feeding his family. He further submits that the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him and some tine amount may be imposed upon him. To this, teamed counsel for the State has no serious objection. 7. in view of above, 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 2 years and one month, and therefore, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Howe‘ver, in lieu thereof, the fine of Rs.2000/- imposed by the tria! Court is enhanced to Rs.t0,000f- and out of this amount, Rs.8,000/- shall be given to the vlctim — $harad Kumar Jaina. lf this amount of Rs.’i0,000/- is not deposed by the appellant within a period of 3 months from today, the sentence awarded by the Court below shall stand restored. ix 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. no Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge