HIQH QQURT OF CHHATTI$C§ARH AT BILA$PLIR éiwgk Bgngh. : Hgn'big. Mr Justigg Priténker Diwgker €rimiml Appga! N9,9Z of 1.991 APPELL‘ANTS Rgguwar Prggad é: gthgr'g: (In jaii) Versus 5mm 9f Madhya Pmdesh RESPONDENT Shri Ani! Pandey, counsa! for fhe appeilanifs. 3hri Vaibhav A. Goverd'han; Rmel Lawyer for fhe Sm‘re. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTEN 3?4 (2;) (3F THE CODE (3F CRIMINAL PROCEEURE Q R I) E :E (Q?.D4.2910) This appeai is d§rzcfgd agqing The impLigngd judgmgn’r dafed 18.01.1991 m5sed by Additionaj Sessium Judgg, $akti (Camp—Janjgir‘) in Sessians Trig! N0. 1Q/1958 convicfing the accused/appellants far- The effences punishab!e under Secfiavn 326/34 0f The Indian Pena! Code and sentencing tham ‘ro undgrgg riggmus impri$gnmanf far fog!" years‘ 2* Cnse of the prosecutian in brief is that on 45.198? at about 1130 pm FlRu (EXP-1) was ledged by injured viciim Sawddas (PW-1) digging in. if mm gm ‘Hm‘r day a? about 6 pm when he was siffmg opposite 1‘0 his house, The accused Raguwar Pmsad & Fir’rumm armed with club and amused Sandas armad wifh axe. camg Thgr‘e and aswui’red him‘ as a resuh‘. >of which, ha wstaingd vqr§9us injuries, Affer inva$frigmicm ’rhg pgiice. has fiigd chalky! against fhg acau$ed garsew far- The. affence 2" { punishable under Sedicns 397/34 and 326/34 of the, Indian ‘i Penal Cade‘ Hawever', chargeg were. framed agairm‘ irhe. accused " persnns far The effencz undgr‘ Szefion 30?/34 (if The lnciion Pena! Coda. 3. So as To hold Ta accused/appelignts guihy, prosegu’rion has examined as many a§ 1Q witngs5e$ in suppart 0f. its casa‘ Statements cf the accused/appeHcxnTs were Msa recerded under Section 313 9f The Code 0f Criminal Prosedur’e in‘whigh They denied Tha charges ieveiled againsw‘ Them and pleaded Their innocence and fqise impiicmion in The cam. ThaT apart wiTnesses namely Rom Singh (DW—l) <31 Mchcin Lcil (DW-z) have. also been examined by The defence in suppor'r of iTs case. 4. ‘ Affer' hearing The parTies The Trial CourT has acquiTTecl The accused/appellanfs for The effences punishable under SecTion 307/34 of The Indian Pencil Code buT has canvicTed and senTenced The accused/appellam's far The Offence under/ SecTion 326/34 0f The Indian Penal Code. Hence This appeal. 6. Heard caunsel fer The parTies and perused The mafrer‘ial ’ available an record ineluding The judgmenT impugned: 7. Counsel for The appellanTs submiTe ThaT he is naT pressing This appeal as far as iT reiaTes To convicTion parT of The impugned judgmenT and would canfine his argumenT TO The senTence parT Thereof only. According To him, ineidenT is said To have Taken place on 4.5498? i.e. abouT Z3 years back, all The appellanTs are now middle aged persans and have The family responsibiliTies, ThaT The relaTians beTween The camplainanT and The accused persons have again became cordial, They were relaTives and in The incidenT accused/appellan‘i' Na 1 has alsa suffered injuries for which a caunTer case was alsa regisTered l T againsT The complainanT and his son, \The facT ThaT main: l allegaTians is againsT The accused/appellanT Na. 3 Sondas who l has remained in jail for abouT 5 monThs ‘di 5 days and The oTher accused persons namely Raguwar Prasad d FirTuram have also ‘ I remained in jail far abom‘ cne monfhs, no u$eful purposg wouid be served. in sending Them Ta jail and i? wwld be in the. inferest ‘ of justice if The sentence imposed an ’rhem is reduced f0 The period already under-gone by Them. Ha submits That appellan‘ts are willing To compensu're The viciim Sawaidus (PW-1} Ta This, counse! for The State has no serinus objemion. 7. In View 0f abovg, the appeal is partly allawed. Canvictian part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Appellants Not, 1 di 2 are reported to have remained in jail for abaut one manth’ whereas the appellant No. .3 is reparted ta have remained in jail for about 5 months and Z5 days, appellants and the complainants were relativee and in the incident accused/appellant No. 1 has also suffered injuries for which a counter case was also registered againet the complainant and his; son, fact that incident is said to have taken piece about Z3 years back and, therefore their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, in lieu thereof, fine of Rs. 12,000l— is imposed on the appellants and outof this amount Rs.11,000/— shall be given to the complainant/victim as compensation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, l: 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds” l sw— {l Pritinker Diwaker Judge l