H%1'!^ W^^y^'M^'!'.'^'-,^^ ^ ?l.^^^^;'^'i'v;-;;.;'^ ^-l K ^t:^^,<r.,^",-.:^ •^-'£. ^•^ CF0000059328 K^M l::w'M ':^'' ^: >< i). ~^;' ./• r. a Bffl HBH •COHRI <» aa^ PItoBSH AT jAMBm. ORIKIHALAPPBii. iio. 7^ QP 199-! ' ,4wN/^lT- : .- CihaadraLalias lally f^i/ -..-' aged 50 years, so& of Harl Prasad Tlwari, resldeiat of Safti Basar, Baipyr, • • •AS^SMEQ? \~ "b^/^^' MJ/ \. state of i!adhya,n.adesh. ^]'^> ^ ' : "s- ^'. ^ ?" .^ . . y.-:V:4//, w • —^^OKBiBIT y •// A£mI-OTBBB SBCTIm — "" "TTT rnTr nii , i i,^ • ^OGEDURE .--^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1991 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Chandra Shekhar alias Lallu Tiwari State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Neeraj Mehta counsel for appellant. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PL for respondenVState. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (21 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (12.04.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.1.1991 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 227/1988 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15.6.1988 FIR Ex. P-4 was lodged by victim Shailesh Thakur (PW-2) alleging that on that day at about 1 p.m. he had gone to attend the Court proceedings at Raipur and when he was talking to one Amdu (PW-4) near a betel shop in the Court premises, accused/appellant came there, sprinkled chilly powder at him and then other accused persons namely Santosh alias Munna Tiwari, Sanjay Tiwari and Johri started chasing him and when he reached near the Court of Shri H.L. Yadav, the accused/appellant assaulted him with battle axe as a result of which he had sustained injuries on right side of his back. Thereafter, accused Munna also caused injury to him on his back. He could save himself by entering into the court room of Shri H.L. Yadav. Based on this report an offence was registered against the appellant and two other accused persons under Sections 307/34 1 PC and 25/27 of the Arms Act. <• 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 09 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under section 313 ofthe Code (^) —2-- of Criminal Procedure in which they deniedthe charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the other accused persons of all the charges levelled against them. Accused/appellant has also been acquitted of the charge under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. However, he has been convicted for the offence underSection307 IPC. 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. According to him, as the appellant has already remained in jail for three years and one month, that the incident had taken place about 22 years back, that now the appellant is aged about 55 years and is a well reputed person of the area, no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail and it would be in the interest of justice if the jail sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Counsel for the appellant further submits that prior to the date of incident brother of the appellant was assaulted by the complainant party and when the appellant had gone to the Court to help his brother, some incident is said to have taken place. He submits that the appellant is ready to compensate the victim Shailesh Thakur. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that looking to the manner in which the .appellant has assaulted the complainant; no leniency should be shown to him. He submits that for an offence under Section 307 IPC the sentence of fine is mandatory but the Court below has erred in law by not imposing the fine sentence on him. d^. ^ v/r" ^ ^'^^k 1 v^ • '%^'^[ ' ^ ^:..'^.^""%£%-,, c^ -2- 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Jail sentence imposed on the accused/appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the appellant shall deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000 in the Court below to be paid to the victim as compensation apart from the fine of Rs. 2,000. Out of Rs. 27,000, anamount of Rs. 25,000 would be payable to the victim. If the amount as directed is not deposited by the appellant within three months from today, the sentence imposed on him by the trial Court shallstand restored. 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge ^ 1 ^'