(S> IN THE mOH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATISGARH) Crimina! AppealNo. ^Sl /2001 Appellants ^ ••' ^ ••"„.-••'.0^ <^",.^^ <^ ^ ^- ^^ ^- ^'./- Respondent Conviction U/s 323 read with 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code U/s323readwith34ofthe Indian Penal Code U/s 325 read with 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code 'M >^5; 1 2. 3. Versus ^- ^?€^-^ .^•lo" ^s^l <^^^ o^ \o^^ G^^^- Q'Yet^Y <^- fo- i- 5X^2-» Phool Singh S/o Kariya Sahu, Aged about 65years, Mohan S/o Phool Singh Sahu, Aged about 30 yecirs, Komal S/o Phooi Singh, ag^d About 28 years. All residents ofManikpur, Police Station Bodala, district Kawardha (Chhatisgarh) State of Chhatisgarh through Police Station Bodala District Kawardha (Chhatisgarh) Sentence Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year each Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year each Rigorous Impnsonmeii Tor 4 years each and fine ofRs.5000/- each. In default ofpayment of\ fine additional R.I. for one year each. All sentences to mn concurrently 6;^-i<P) , (1-(-^1^^ Ge^^-sc? iv rt^ <41p-<X|)^A^ . z- CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(2^ OF TFPICRIMFNAL PROCEDUR.E CODE. 1973 IN THE mCH COURT OF JUDIC (CHHATlSa Crimina! Appeal No. Appellants 1. .\ ..•••"... f^ .••"'^ ^'•••-...••^, <^";-^^^ : ' C^l -<^1 ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Respondent 2. 3. Ver fa^} ^4^i^^0 Conviction U/s 323 read with 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code U/s 323 readwith 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code U/s 325 read with 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code \y 2. S/©'o.^artilfc 3, Kaart.lX 4, BaJ:arS-tiii Bai. ^3.3. ansgident o5 Mairil€s»w?» poljtee Station BodXa'* t5i.r;tt.» %awayd'ha (^•<3»)-• ^ ^^) ^^^l<^^-^ c^, ^^^ C^—^hOyA--e^ ,^^\ ^S¥'& 61 0(^- - ^O' !. A^2- , 6;^t{-t<(2) , (l-(-^Tb^ C^^^5€^^ rt^ ./^'j ^/ HI^H COURT OF CHHATTISGARN AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pntlnker Diwaker) Crimlnai Appea! No. 1091 of 2001 .APPELLA.NTS RESPONDiNT VERSUS Phool Singh and others State of Madhya Chhattisgarh Shri A. K, Prasad/counsel for the appeljants, Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, PL for the State. CODE OF^CRZMINAL PROCEpyRE. JUDeNENT (01.03.2011) This appeal Is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2001 passed by the Spedal Judge^ Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 187 of 2000 convicting the accused/appejiants under Sections 323/34,. 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s 323/34 and underao rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s 323/34 and undergo rigorous smprisonment for four years and pay fine of Rs.5,.000 u/s 325/34 of 1PC, pius default stipulations. Ai! the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.07.1997, FIR Ex. P-6 was lodged by Jagannath (PW-l) aljeglng in it that on that day at about 8 a.m. a dispute arose between the complalnant party and the accused/appellants on account of ploughing the field as a result both the parties have assaulted each other. It ts also alleged that the accused appeliants have abused him by name of his caste and assaulted the compSainant party by means of dub causlng various injunes to Jagannath (PW-1), Kartik Ram (PW-2) and Bazharin Bai (PW-3), Based on this reportf offence under Sections 294,. ^ ^^ ~-^^s^^f ^«N« -'z.- 323, 324, 447 read with Section 34 of IPC was regjstered against the accused/appeIJants and after completion of Investjgatlon chaijan was fjjed on 30,07,1997 for the offences under Sections 294, 323.. 324, 325, 447 of IPC and 3 (1) (iv- v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act whereas the Court below framed charge against them under Sections 294, 323 or 323/34, 324 or 324/34, 325 or 325/34, 447 of IPC and 3 (1) (v) & 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduied Castes and Scheduted Tribes (Prevention of Atrodties) Act. 3. So as to hold the accused/appetjants guilty, prosecutlon has examlned 06 wltnesses sn support of its case. Statements of the accused/appeSlants were also recorded under sectlon 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sn which they denied the charges leveSled against fchem and pleaded their innocence and faise jmpiication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acqultted the accused/appetiant of the offences under Sections 294,. 324/34, 447 of IPC and 3 (1) (v) & 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but convicted and sentenced them for the offences under Sections 323/34, 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC 5. Meard counse! for the parties and perused the material avaiiable on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Learned counsei for the appellants submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would conflne his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him^ the incident had taken place more than 13 years back, that a counter case has also been filed against the complainant party, that the appellant No. 1 is now aged about 78 years whereas appeSlant 1 ^ ^l^ ^^— Nos. 2 & 3 are middle aged persons having family responsjbjljties^ that the appellants have already remained in jall for three months and 25 days.. no useful purpose would be served in sending them back to jaj.1 and it wou.ld be in the jnterest ofjustjce ifthe sentence imposed on them is reduced to the period already undergone by them, To this^ counsei for the State has no serious objection. 7. Accordingjy,. the appeal is partly allowed. Convlctjon part of the impugned judgment is malntajned but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case^ in particujar., the inddent had taken place more than 13 years back, that a counter case has aiso been fsled against the complainant party^ that the appellant No.l is now aged about 78 years whereas appeligint Nos, 2 & 3 are middie aged persons having family responsjbiSities^ that the appellants have already remained ln jail for three months and 25 days, the Jajl sentence jmposed on them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However. in lieu thereof^ the appellants are directed to pay a fjne of Rs. 3/000 each in addition to the fjne amount awarded by the trial Court totaling Rs.9,000 out of whlch Rs. 3,000 each would be paid to the complainant JagannathCPW-l)/ Kartjk Ram (PW-2) and Bazharin Bai (PW-3). The appelSants would get the advantage of this judgment.. If they deposjt the fine amount Imposed on them by this Court as weli as by the trial Court. 8. Appeal thus partiy succeeds. Ow^ Sd/- pritinkerDiwaker Judge