*f t\; IN T?IE HZCTI COURT. OF l-a.DIKA PRABESH AT .J&BM<g?UR •CRZMirJAL APPESL NO*^OJ^^._Oy/i?96- :• . Kamlocf^n S/o Asadi' Bhurva aged abou.t' 53 years res^dent ,of Metgudapara P'^S *Bodbghat, Jagdalpur,;Mstt^Bastar<^P) ^ VERSUS ACCUSE'D" RESPOHF^HT. : . T^e State of Madhya Pradesh fhrough P^S ^Bodhghat^sJagdaIpiir £S^S^^E££MLJ£^S^M121«^-«2SSL^£^2^ GODg:,-.1974 —--'—— — ---^ -^- ^ ./ 1_ HIGH COVRT OF CHHATHSQARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JU8TI<% PRITINKKR DIWAKBR CRJl.NO. 1088/1996 APPBLLANT RESPONDBNT versus Kamlochan StateofM.P, <-• 1 •' /-„ Shri Prafull Bharat, counsel for the appellant. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, P.L. for the State. APPBAL U/S 374(21 OF THE CMMINAL PROGBDURB COjm JUD6MBNT (11.04.2011) The present appeai arises out of the judgment 8& onler dated 28.05.96 passed by the SecondAdditional Sessions JudgCy Jagdalpur^ DiBtrict Bastar in Session Trial No. 590/93 eonwcting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Seotion 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Pacts of the case in brief are that on the basis of.dehati nalishi (Bx.P/4) dated 16.10.93 lodged by victim Sadiq Hussain (P.W.-2) PIR (Ex.P/11) was registered against the accused/appeilant on 17,10.93 under Section 307 IPC. It is alleged by the complainant that on the date of incident, accused/appellant had gone to the house of the victim and made enquiiy about his son and when the victim informed hiiii that hm son had already left his house, out of anger, the accused/appellant gave an axe blow on the forehead causing him injiiry^ After InvestigB.tion, challan was filed on 8.11.93 under Section 307 IPC. 3. So as to prove the guilt of the accused/appsllant, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses, Two defence witnesses have atso been examined, Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. ln which he denied the eharges levelled apainst him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the caae» 4, After hearing counsel for the parties^ the trial Oourt haa acquitted the accused/appellant of the charge iinder Section 307 of the lodian Penal Code but has convicted him under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Contention of Shri Bharat, counsel for the appellant is tiiat he is not pressing this appeal ao far as it relates to conviction part of the judgment impugned and would confine his argument to the sentence part of the same only. He submits that the incident had taken place about 17 years back and now the appellant is more than TO years of age» He further argues that the appellant does not keep good health and is almost bedridden, has alrea<ty remained in jail for about 11 days, no useful purpose would be sewed in a^in sending him l»ckfo jail, He ho'wever submits that the appellant is willing to compensate the victim by paying him adequate compsnsation, To this counsel for the Stete has no serious objection. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. However looking to the fact that the incident had taken place about 17 yeara back the appellant has already remained in jail for about 11 daySy the appellant is now aged about 70 years and that he is not keeping good healthythis Court is of the view that it would be in the interest ofjustioe if the jail sentence imposed on the accused/appeUant is reduced to the period already undergone by him subject to depositing the fine amounf^ 7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Jail sentence impoawi on the acciised/appellant is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. However/in the interest ofjusticey the appellant ia directed to deposit fine of Rs. 10,000. This amount shall be gtwsn to fhe victim as compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C^ Appellant is directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 10,000 before the Coixrt betow within a period of sbc months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if this amount is not deposited within the said period the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months* pri<ink ivlak"' Judge