III CF0000059289 /f-l\ ! ~w Ct r'-.i ^)^ c~>. 4-- .f, ^'/ f. Ron^S- / r-:—- ft Bench (Criminai, AT JAB&IOTB GRIRI IU, APfEAI, BO. t./ Za.a-fianaath, soc of Notan Saini, aged t|0 yearso 3ii-'0gan8sjd, son of Vishram ~- Sata, aged 26 yesrsi h ii- Har Prasad, scn of Kuajrsa ;,^ XJ il,-,y/igy ;• f^f^ yf^/ ^?y <//w ^y 6. ^f^/f^' A/ *<'' "? 'G ^/ ^ tl^BSU &^ $«^,-'Kaj Knsaar alias Bajs, soa of Safan, aged of viliage S-te-te of Badbya Tradesh I/a.T^ .^iESPOBDEBT ffiIBIH&L APPE&L VSESS. SECTIOH 37it(2) OFTHE G(SS& QF GRIHIS&L ,1-1"-»,.•f^^ r- RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.06 12:32:44 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 322 of 1993 APPELLANTS RESPONDENT VERSUS Ramlal and others. State of Madhya Pradesh Shri B.P.Sharma counsel forthe appellants. As none appears for appellant No.2, Shri H.S. Ahluwalia advocate empanelled in the High Court Legal Service Committee is appointed to appear and argue on his behalf. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for respondenVState. CRIIVIINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. J U DGIVIE NT (26.04.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.3.1993 passed byAdditional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 170/1988 convicting the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 326/149 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 148 and rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs. 2000 plus default stipulations, u/s 326/149 IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.1.1987 FIR Ex. P-1 was lodged by Sammat Bai (PW-2) alleging that on that day at about 12.30 afternoon, the accused/appellants as also the other accused persons had assaulted her husband with the help of battle axe, club and knife as a result of which he received number of injuries on his body and his 'ankle was also chopped off. After investigation, the police filed the challan against the accused persons under sections 307, 147, 148 and 149 IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. g^ / ^ 'i-y 2. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the accused/appellants of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 149 IPC but convicted and sentenced them under sections 148 and 326/149 IPC. During the pendency of appeal appellant No.1 namely Ramlal has expired whereas accused/appellant No.2 Ramnath is absconding for last several years. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel 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 confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. He'submits-that as the appellants have already remained in jail for three months and the incident had taken place in the year1987, no useful purpose would be served in sending them 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 submits that the appellants are ready and willing to adequately compensate the the wife of the victim. In support of this submission, counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet and others reported in (2009) 13 SCC 478. This prayer made by the counsel for the appellants is seriously opposed by the cbunsel for the respondent/State. 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 appellants have remained in jail for about three months and the incident had taken place in the year 1997 and the aforecited judicial pronouncement of the Supreme Court, jail sentence imposed on the accused/appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine imposed by the Court below is enhanced to the total sum of Rs. 25,000 (Rs. 5,000 by each of the appellants) from that which has been awarded by the Court below. Out of this total fine amount of Rs. 25,000, Rs. 20,000 shall be payable to be the wife of the victim. -s - Ifthe fine amount as directed is not deposited in the trial Court within three months from today, the sentence imposed on the appellants shall stand restored. 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. I g^ i Pritinker Diwaker i Judge