'•^:"."y'^ CF0000059121 ^^^^: ^5- <Z5~^ &, /o . ^i <3 A-^- ^^-f .}y^ IN THB HIGH COUai OP MATHYa PRAEESH .AI JABAEPUR. w^ Criminal appeal N0. ^i -/-fc /90. Appellants Lalloolal son of Chhakkelal,aged about 20 years, Agricultural labourer. 9/0 vlllages Bhatiadand P. s.Karwahi, District Bilaspur, . versus Respondeafcs 'Ehe Qtate of Hadhyd Pradesh, APPEAL' UNDER 3E'CTIpN_ 374<_25_OE' OTiE. GOBB OF CRlBltIAE EROCEDURE ! ^ . 1 , ^es'-ds,,^"^s.. iri8»dJ;!SE»,:1 ii^'<uaM-i'i i :i:llll HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Mon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 976 of 1990 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Lalloolal son of Chhakkelal. State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Vinod Tekam counsel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Sharma PL for respondenf/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTIQN 374 (2)0F THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGiyiENT (28.04.2010) This appeal is directedagainst the judgment dated 16.8.1990 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 179/1989 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 304 part II IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. Case of the prosecytionin brief is that on 27.6.1989 FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged by Sukhsen (PW-l)statingthaton 26.6.19891 his son Anand Ram was assaulted by the accused/appellant oni his head with the help of club whereas the other accused namely Chhakelal was holding him while being assaulted by the present appellant. After investigation the police had filed Ithe challan against the present appellant under Section 302 and against the co-accused under section 302/34 IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecutionjhas examined 18 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under section 313 oftheGode of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the chargeslevelled against them and pleaded theirinnocence and false implicatian in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the co- accused of the charge u/s 302/34 IPC. Present appellant has ^also been acquitted ofthecharge u/s 3021PC butconvicted u/s 304 par; IIIPC. l!ld|,,iiii...i^ij,[i^iu. S I.U ^llfll i -2- 5 . Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Gourt in the matter of Wlohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab reported in 1979 Cri.L.J. 584 counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant has already remained in jail for more than two years and that the incident had taken place on the spur of moment, no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail and it would be in the interest ofjustice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. This prayer made by the counsel for the appellant is seriously opposed by the icounsel for the respondenVState. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant has remained in jail for more than two years, that the incident had taken place on the ispur of moment and the aforesaid decisionof the Supreme Court cited by the counsel for the appellant, the sentence imposed on the accused/appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge r^