7 _ CFooooo59455 r $%kh@&hww v IN THE T ABLPUR .; HIGH CGURT @E‘ FaADHYA PRADESH A VIX \ r /\ Criminal Ae al Na . MurraWala' alias Jyotirmay Bhat S/e Rishikesh bE 7 APLLANTs R; BhlmL g" > ‘ ‘y S/e Tnakurram Yadav, , a Ageér about 32 year§, Occupatien‘ Labour. \ Both 9f them arg‘ rgside _ o£ Panjri Plant '3 _ ,Chakradhar Nagar, r Thana Chakradhar N District‘ Raigarh d” mVT£ $7 REsPQNDENT‘x igg . APPEALuUNDER SE6. 3H4Cr. pp J > ‘ _ t‘ / ‘ ‘ x I‘ ~ nt . ag HIGH couR-r 9F cHHAmg H A1 BILAspun — (Hon, Mr. Jusuce Pntmker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No 321 of 1996 Murrawaia @ Jyotirmay Bhattacharya and another APPEI‘LAM? VERSUS State cf Madhya Pradesh Shn Awadh Tnpathl, counsel for the appeliants. Shrn Ashish Gupta, P L for the State Bgsmygm 9.2.9 $.M_E NT (21.06.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgmert‘and order dated 29.01.1996 passed by Second Additionai Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Session Trial No 47 of 1995 cenvieting the : accused/appellants under Section 436 of IPC and sentencmg ' both the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs.1,000, In default of payment of fine , to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2 Brief facts of the case are that on 15 10 1994 FIR Ex P-1 was lodged by the complainant Yasoda Bai (PW-1) alleging in it that on 14.10.1994 at about 7 p m alter locking he‘r house she had gone to watch Dashera fair along with her children and when she reached near Handi Chowk, she was informed by Ram Kumar (PW-2) that her house was set on fire by the appellants She has further alleged that when she got back one room of her house and the artides kept in it were reduced to ashes as a result she suffered loss of Rs. 9,000. Based on this FIR, offence under Section436/34 of IPC was ' registered against. the appellants and after ~ completion of investigation, Challan was filed on 11.11.1994 against them for the offence under Sections 436/34 of IPC iv y -9; and 3 (2) (in) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Iribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, isra 3. So as to hoid the accused/appeiiants guiity, prosecution has examined O4 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appeilants were also recorded under section 313 of the code of Criminai Procedure in which they denied the charges ieveiied against them and pleaded thelr innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has acquitted the accused/appellants of the offence under Section 3 (2) (iii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 but convicted and sentenced them for the' offence under Section 436/34 of IPC, hence, the present appeaL 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available 'on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not. V 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. He submits that the incident had taken place more than 16 years back, the'appellants have already remained in jail for about 15 days and now the appellant No.1 is aged about 63 years whereas appellant No.2 is aged about 49 years, it will [be too harsh to send them back to jail and it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. He however submits that the appellants are willing to pay adequate compensation to the complainant under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure To this, j counsel for the State has no serious objection. ‘ v -3? 7, Accordingiy,vtha appea! is partly‘allowed, Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, the ingident ‘ ¥ had taken place more than 16 years back, the appeiiantg have ’ ‘ i‘ ' aiready remained in jail for about 15 days and now the appellant Nogl is aged about 63 years whereas appellant No.2 is aged about 49 years, the Jail sentence imposed anthem is reduced/to the period already undergone by them. Howevery in lieu thereof, the appellants are directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 6,000 each in addition to the fine amount awarded by the trial Court totaiing Rs.12,000 which would be paid to the Complainant Yasoda Bai (PW—1) within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the compensation amount as directed is notdeposited in the trial Court within the stipulated period, the appellants shall under go imprisonment for a period of six’months. l 3; Pritinker Sd/-. Diwaker y ‘ Judge ’”’ ’ i r, 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. H