@Em_;_a§&r =’ 3'? aigm“;_a§q_g§wnm@ggg {yak \\ ‘ i g sag/WY7% wnmmm....AJm§§g f‘ r: . to D. {%r @a mmuwmu.mm:~m WEE ‘fm" Ir @TTk‘w§a”rwr, 3}: 35 arr“ 92y Cm: rm g2? mm away): 50 éqr? 75$ E1131 ‘Fqar zmr—g3: —«\ ‘ ET? '? #0 3E5f, M 3 * -; 'Fcr‘ar %1§3‘un” Esh?‘ 3“}: L}; axf, §5$ 6U 3n“; amr 'ftmr $WTW E‘em 3;};38 amt, ?z6§i .JD$T§3WWT WFftmTH—Iwwg cr1w3€r§§ aTmr ET?T<—T;FW?— mgr? Wag oi: ”D [7: a . §w—:w?:~1rs:r1£: mar griw Eli-NT m7 " gra’cfra' avg 'fau'm i airwamx 323 firrm‘TaxaWE‘ fawm >¥Ig $2523?! arwr twwmf‘a. Fl: T ?'TETT?T l 5x113? HT??? ST‘tT wifrl L;?Gi‘b:r?”r aim 7L: Eu‘igfiar éF’ > 4 V. f‘ ' 3 m n w-sw} w \ l§ ‘\ H ‘ g / , J Wg I ¥ " @ HIGH COURT OF £HHAT§E5¥§ARH AT BELA5?UR Singig Bench ; Hen'big Mar, Egsi‘ica ?ri?a‘nkgr B§m§<gr Criminai Amati! No. 131$ @f W96 Laku Ram am Qthar's fA?PELLANT5 Varsus 3mg Qf Madhya §3mdesh ; RE$PONDENT , Ms. Sudha Agmwal, CQunseE far we appzEiams, Mr. Ravmdm Agrawah ?me§ Lawyer far Hue $mie. §IMINAL AWEAL UNDER $ECT§0N 374 (2'3 0? THE CODE 6F CRIMINAL P§GC§DUQE oabgg (gamzmm .M Prasem‘ appgai arises am m’: the impugngd gudgmgnf and arder' da’red 15.7.i99& passed by 59mm: Jucige, Raipur' ‘m Special Case Na. 165/i99é canvicting tha accused/appek‘mms for ’rhe affemes punishab§z undar Sadiéons E47 and 323 mad wh‘h Sec’rion 149 9f The Indian Penai Godz and sam'encing Them Tc undergc rigcr‘gus impr§senmem for sjx mimths u/S 14? EPC, #0 undergo rigorous imgr‘asonmen‘? fer skx mamhs u/S 323/149 IPC‘ BoTh The semencgs wgre. cmdzr‘ed m ma coneurr‘zntiy. Z. Case of *ha prosecufwn in bvief is fhta‘: on 8.3k1994 FER ‘v‘ (EXP-1) was iadgzd by Pawan Kumar Mandk @W—l) qliagMg ‘m H That on tha‘r day a? abau’r Z pm he. has bean assaulted by +he accused persam by hand and fisi’ and he mm also abu5ed, as o. resul‘r of g which ha sustained various injuries 9n hés back side» \ \ Af‘rer‘ invésfigafi‘a‘n ‘ the palice " has fiied Chaim: agains'f the ‘ \ accused/appaimn?s for *s‘he affences punishgbk under Sectians 147, 323/149 ané under Sgm‘ien 3mix) 0f tha Schaduled ‘Ccxs’re and Scheduiad Tr§bes ‘(Pmyemmn 9f Afmc'g’ries} AC1. $5 3. 1 $0 as m hold the Qcwsed/appeilams guiiw, pmseaufrien has 1 examined . as many as 4 Witnesses . . In suppar’r ’ of . :Ts a cqse. Std‘remem‘s of The accused/appeihnfs were aiso mccr'ded undgr Secfiaa 313 9f me Coda‘ef Cr§mincsj Procedure in whiah may denied frhe charges ‘éevaiiecé a-gmnS? mam and pleaded Thejir' innaggnce and fake impiimtian in The. cgsg: Apar? fmm Thi$, witnessgs nameéy Kgjumm {DW—l}, Imgri Ram (DW—Z) é’a Rargghamse (DW-S) have also been examined by The eefenc in suppcm‘ of ifs case. 4 . 4. After hearhiig The parfies fhe Tria! Cour"? has acquit’red The accused persons for The affence under Sec‘rien 3(1)(x) cf fhe Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (E’r'even‘lion of Atmcilles) Ac? however- has convicted and sentenced The presen‘l accused/appellan‘ls for The cffence' under Secflon 147 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence This appeal. 5, Heard counsel for fhe parties and perused fhe maferial available on record including The judgmem‘ impugned. 6. During The pendency of fhe present appeal, th accused/respondent No. 2 Fudru Ram Dheewar has expired on 7.10.2006 and, therefore, present appeal confines oniy in respect of appellants No. 1, 3, 4., 5 and 6. Hence the present appeal. 7. Pursuant‘to the notice issued by this Court, ail the appellants are present befare this Court. f? , 1"“ f G 8. Counsel for the appellants submits that she is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of e the impugned judgmen‘r and wouid cam‘ine her argumenT t0 The sentence par? Thereaf only. According m her, as ’rhe appeNanTs hqve remained in jail for about 5 days, incident i$ said To have faker! p!ace on 83,1994, after The inaidem rekz‘rians between ‘fHe accused/appeihnfs and a‘he campiainan’r have become cardia! and subsequen’riy fhe compiainan’r has aiso expired, nc useful purpaae would be served In <endma mem m lat! and W would be m The Werest 0f Jusw‘u‘e If The eemenee impesed on them is reduced ’re the permd aiready undergane by them. Tr; this, r V . eounse! for the STa‘te has no serious abjecfieni 9e Aln View of above, the appeal is partly aiiawed. Canviction part at the impugned judgment isvmaintainedi Aepeiiants are reported to have remained in jaii for 5 days, ineident is said to have taken piece in the year 1994 ie about 1e years back, reiations between the accused/appeiiants and the compiainant have become cardia! and therefore their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them, / u// ‘ i Sd/- 1Q. Appeal thus partly allowed, : Pminker Diwaker Judge A, i IAJ