1111111111111111111111 CF0000058192 Nfe fe, IN TEiE HIGH COURT OF MADRYA PRMlESH .AT J-ABALPUR CRIMIS^L iS>PEM. N0- ^4-fc /95 a@peUaot $- ffpor ^li son of Eihuran Ali Masalman agea 37 yrs, resideat of Bandhavapara . poliee statiora Ibrwa, Bilaspar (M,P<) •versixs R@spon^®Q^t State of M»P< OoBvictio^ 2'J^- .;." ta/s 324 Ipe u/@ 324 IPC ,u»—Msi^^ W^MMwi^&S Sentence / R.I. for 3 yrs./ R» !• for 3 yrs / (Sente^ce riims eosio^rrent )' / fl^a@ESSSSS$^G<3.K4<^<»3?^ftoB<>8f'<?<>»*' CRIKINAL-APpEftI,-CTmER_SEGTION 374 (2) CR. P^>C_, A._- HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BIL4SPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justic®Pritinker Diwaker Criminal Awea^ No. 246 of 199S APPELLANT Noor Ali, son of Dhurcin Ali AAusalmaan Versys RESPON&ENT State of AAadhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgorh) Shri Arun Kochor, counsej for the appellant. Shri Vivek Sharma, PL for the State/respondent. CRIMINAL A??EAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUD6MENT (11.01.2011) This appeat is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.1.1995 poissed by 5 Addjtional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 130/1993 convicting the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years u/S 324 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years u/S 324 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief focts of the case are that on 18.5.1992 F.I.R. (Ex.P-1) WQS lodged by Dinesh &as (PW-1) alleging in it that on that day at about 5.30 am the accused./appejlont has ossouited him with the heip of knife on account of dispute over water and when his brother Diieep Das tried to intervene, he too was assauited. 3. So as to hoid the accused/appejlont guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses in supporl- of its case. Statement of the occused/appeiloint was also recorded under y——-—-•— \ ti ^.:":M^ 1 9 '®?^:^;^I ^y Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the chorges ievelled against him and pieaded his innocence and false implication in the case. Apart- from this, witnesses namejy Vimla Bai (t)W-l) and Peela Bai (DW-2) have aiso been examined by the defence in support- of its case. 4. After hearing the part'ies the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appetjant as mentioned obove. 5. Heard counsei for the part'ies and perused the material available on record inciuding the judgment impugned. 6. Counsei for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal so far as it rejates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence port thereof only. He submits that os the appellant has already remained in jail for about 22 days, he is now aged about 52 years and the incident had taken place about 18 years back, no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail and it woujd be in the interest of justice jf the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. He further submits that appellant is willing tocompensate the victims namely Dinesh Das <S Dileep Das by paying adequate compensotion os may be directed. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection 7. Having thus considered the fact that as the judgment impugned concerning conviction of the appellant is left unchollenged at this stage, the scme is hereby maintained. However, keeping in view the fact that the appeliant remained in jail for about 22 days, incident had taken place about 18 years back, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence ^. '%. •-x-.-^.'''' -7 ^ imposed on the appellant to the period alreadyundergone by him. Plowever, the oppeliant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 11,000/- os compensation and out of thisamount Rs. 10,000 shall be given to the victims (Rs.5,000 to each of the victims). If this amount of Rs.11,000/- is not deposited in the Courl- below within a period of five months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, appellant shall undergo the rigorous imprisonment for one year. —_-_- 8. Appeal thus parl-jy succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge |iMmiuNiwb.