^' ,.•'•' ^^' CF0000061705 Sngfe 8end (Crmto, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR (MP)• ?rr 4^' ^^^ APPELLANTS. (IN JAIL)o ^»'^w»^mMT^HWVa^ '^^:^^ ^»^» Criminal Appeal No» (7S<S~ /97< li Bahal Agarla S/OoChandrabhan Agaria, age 55 yearso ' I 2* Timani Agaria S/o* Bahal Agaria, ^ age 25 years. 3/ Ranglal Agarla^ S/o, Baljor Agiria? age 20 years<» 4y/ Balgovlnd Agaria S/Oo Baljor Agaria, age 23 years All R/o» village- Kishori PS-Sonhat^ Distt- Sarguja» MF» -Versus1- if. Y A • RESPONDENT. State of M<P» through PS-So|nhat» Disfct- Sarguja, MPo CRININAL APPEAL U/S* 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRI1«1INAL PROCEDURE-1973» ^' ^; ^.- ^^- IN THE HIOH COURT CF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR CRIMINJsiL, AP%AL N0»715/97 Bahal Agaria and others vs« State of M«P< (C.G<) J'GDGMENT .EterL fiton •5-»S< Gargf _ <7 t The appellants being aggrieved by the jud gment dated 25-2-1997 passed In Sessions TrJ.al N6*345/96 by the learned Addl ^Sesslons Jtidge^ Bai3<:iinthpur<Sarguja) oonvi.atingthe appellants ao.l to 3 under Sectlon 323 IPC and sentencing them to undergo R^I^ for one year an<3 pay flne of fe^200/-each^ In default of payment of fine|, defaulter to go furtherR^I<. for one month^and con^. the appellant no,4 under Section 307 X^P^C^ and sen|tenclng Mm to undergo R^I^ for se'ven ^ears and pay flne of] Rs«1000/-» in default of payment of fine to undergo 'fEurther R^I^ for one year^ have preferred this appeal» 2< The prosecution case in brle £ 1s that on 26l-6-1996 at about 6»OOp»ra«vlctimPaMdaSa-t and one Rajbali fche house of accused.Whj.Ie Rajball was preparing tta^ <3rink, accused Bahal asked the vlctim to graze his cattle^] on whidbi the victim Pax^an Sai told him that fee hlmself bas g^ven his bullocks to another person for grazing.the refore, h^ would not graze the cattles of accused Bahal^ on this accitised Bahal abused tte vlctla Pawan Sai and caused Mm an by means of a lathi on Ms left hand< He also callec other appellants* Paw^an Sal tried to flee away from but all tfae four apprehended Mm and caused hlmjd.njt|irles • the ctlng went to Injury the the spot -^s^.-. 2.^ ^fao Balgovlnd/was armed wlth a farsa caused him Injuries on the head wMle the otiier three aaused hlm AnjurJe s by lathi^ After hearing the alarms raised by tte vlctim» ^\. Tilakram^ Shivprasad and ottera caite to the spot^ Seelng-fs^ on-comlng ^ rsons^ tbe accias ed persons fled away, thereafter the victlm was token to the police station where he lodged the flrst Information report (Ex<iP/l)<» He was referred to the hospltal for his medical report and repair of theinjuries^ The doctors after examinlng the victlm" ' 3»3paxfc inforsred the police that the Anjury no^l on the head of tte victlm was dangeroiis to Ufe<.After|collectiBg the niaterial^tfae proseciitioa agency £i3ed ttae challan against the accused persons^ the accused were put to tri.al» after recordlng tJhe evideixse and hearlng the parties the trial courb convlcted and sentenced accused persdns as referred to above^ 3< The proseGUtlon agency has examlned as makiy as twelve ^itnesses In support of Its case whlle tte had examined two persons xn thelr defence^ accused 4^ Learned coiinsel for the appellants subinlt^ that the appellants have been falsely impllcated and a^ there 1s no legal evidence against tbe%f e acfa of the appel deserves to be acqulfcted^ ant 5^ Learned counsel fcr the State on the otheir slde submlts tfoat from the statements of the prosecutiojn wltnesses^ it would clearly appear that the victlr^ had suffered injury OB hls head and the defence wltnes|ses are ^L not reliable<. He submits that the convictlonls itsi acaordaw e with law and the serafcences do not ca.; any interference» Eor ^ liM^!!si?t;^i!^:^fe^^^^ i^^^^'f^ ^i 3 - 6 ^ I hava gone tMrough the statemeats of the proseeution wltnessesi especially the stafcements of P^W^i Pawan Sal» P.W.2 Tllakram, P*w«3 ShaloJc, P.W.4 Shiv Prasa<3» P«W*5 Raiabal and P«W«8 Eajbali • These witnesses have corroborated each other<» Prom tte statements of Pawan Sai^ It ifi?ould clearly appear tMat the assault was opened on hlm by oxse Bahal while the otter accused p^rsons came to t he spot stibsequenfcly • From tte sfcatemeats of tte se wltnesses^ it would appear that Balgovind WQ.B aCTed with a farsa and saxd Balgovind caused an injury by sald farsa on the left side of the head. In fche statenents of the victlm and the other eye wltesesseSji xiotfaing could be brought on record to show or suggest tfoat they are unreliable^ She witnesses have supporfced each otiter on the materlal points^ 7« P«W«6Dr<N»C< Ral has first exarained thel ^e has found one cut injury on the head of the v|. and some ottaer slmple Injurfes on the left shoMdt knee^ yet another injury on the rightp knee, some| ^ on the base of the thurab and coraplain^i^Spain l^a thlghs« According to the sa.td doctor, barring ln[ found on the head of the vlctim^ the other Injur^ slmple In natu^e^ 8^ From the statements of the other witness^ would ciearly appear that they had taken part In InvestJ.gatlon, preparatlon of the" raeaoranduras an< dlecovery of the articles and particular facts. 9» After golng through the ent4.re records, ^ victim^ Lctim sr, rlght swelling ( the }ury no^l .es were iS, It the am unable to hold that the prosecutloa failed in pro|ving Its case and the trlal court erred in convictlng tte laccused persons* The flndings recorded by the trlal c^urL^co— herefey confirm&^^ . ^:^ ^y I I1' 4 "^' 10 ^ At tMs stage^ learned counsel for the accused persons sutatiits that the appellants no •I tq 3 fcave remalned In jail for more than six months an<3 as Section 323 Z<»P^C^ does not preseri.be for any mandatory sentence^ the sentence may be redixced to the jK±3a22 period already iindergoi^eo % furtter submifcs that accased Balgovlnd was tafcen Into oustody on 27-6-1996^ he remalned In jall as an undertrial prisoner upto 25-2-1997 and slnce thereafter is undergoing tte sentence as a convict anfl durlng this period of 4^2 years he must have earned some remlsslon^ therefore, the sentence be reduced tc^ the period already undergoxse^ 1 ir I have teard the j^rtles<» 12^ From the records, It appears that accus^d Bahalf ^lmani^ Ranglal and Balgovind were taken into c^stody on 27-6-1996 • he records of the ooiirt below show tjhat accused Bahal and Tlmani were directed to be rel!eased on bal.lon 1-1-1997 • Till that date, accused Rangla|l was als3 produced from fche ciistody and thereafter he| appeared In the Court • From ttese proceedings^ 1] personall^ tfc would ^ appear that accused Bahal, Ti.mani and Hangaral rebiained in jall as unaertrial prlsoners for a period of slx and slx days. 13 <, Taking into conslderatlon the totallty o{ circumstances and the perlod whicli has been undej the appellants no»l Bahal^ no^2 Timanl arrino^3 I reduce tte Jatl sentenoe to the perlod alreadyl by them, however, I malntain the fine and defaull If the fluB amount 1s recovered, the total amoun-1 to the victlm as compensation after dx^e verifJcaiion 14 ^ So far as accused Balgovind 1s months tte ^gone by R^nglal^ undergone ^ sentence^ i-^ be paid the, ^4 [ 1 5 - records show that from 27-6-1996 to 25-2-1997 1. .e• fec a perlod of eight months^ he reiralnejln jail as an underfrlal prlsoner and wlth effect from 25-2-1997 he 1s undergolng the sentence as a convlct^ The appellant no»4 1s in jail as a convlct for four years and seven months» Darlr^g thls period^ he nmst have eamed mor^ than one year as remisslon^ 2Cf the said perlod of remlssloii 1s added to the period already iindergone by the accused^ it woiild appear that he has undergone more thaa six years jail senteiaoe^ 15^ In tbe Anterest of jiistiae aad takliig JLnfco conslderation the totality of the circumstaxices^ I consider present to be a £it case ^rhere the jail sentenoe awarded to the appellaxit no •4 should be redueed to the / perlod already undergone by hlm^ It 1s accordingly done ^ While maintaining the fine anount and the default. sentence awarded to Balgovind^ the substantive j^ll sentence awarded to him is reduced to the perlod undergone^ 16\ Appellaliits no ^l fco 3 were ordered to be 4'eleased on ball^ If they have availed the bail order graated In t'helr favour, then their bail bondsare disaharg^d ^ If they have not deposlted the flne amount^ they ma^ deposlt the same wltMn two months from today^ other^lse |the Court may dxsip draw proper proceedings against tM®a»l4 the appel lants nQol to 3 have not availed the bail 03Jder issued In thelr favour, and have already undergo^e fche jall sentences atid the defauZt sentences^ then nc^thlng further would be required to be done in tfoeAr ca,E 17^ Appd lant no •4 be Immedlately released^i requlred in any othercase* He may deposlt^^^f. alraady e <. not |ne ^amount '^ m' "^ 6 — within a perl.ad of three raonthsi If because of any additional remlssion glven to hi% by the State Govt^ he has already uxidergone the substantive jail sentence^ thest he woaLd only be reqaired to deposit the. flne amount OAKic.k o^ ^vC-j^X»^-<X^<srCv^l^aJ^ \r-& ^eJL^A ^G 0»^-^A-<3UL^-c<^J^7 18» The appeal to the extent Xndlcated above 1s allo^ed^ Sd/- R.S. Garg Judge 24-9-2001. I H/-(1+2)