^mSi^^^^^^^5@^^^ggi^g^S ^^ s?o <~t ,:^ IN THE HISH GOURT QF JUQICATORE AT JABALPtB Cri. Appeal. No. VT3 2—of 19 96 Appsllants 1,.^'MaldaSy/'.. "' y?'\ •' • ^ • /'' S/0 Bahadur, Agetf about 45 Years 2. Jagdish, S/0 Dfemnu Lal, .^iged 35:Years-'' " . • ' : ^ Both R/0 Pakartya, Peiice Statlon Pangarh, Teh. Janjgix, Mstt* Bilaspur, Mtfp,^ Jfersus • : : ^ Versus RespOBdents y State of M.P. through" PoI3.ee Station Paagarh, Qistt. Bilaspar, M.P, " A} GRIMINAL AgPEAL UHQEB SECTION 374 OF CQDE QF C&IMINAL PROeE®Bg. 1973 "&.•vm 'y!^^ .'rt- l1 ^)''"li'^S!^i"i (^ *:'!§%' "••- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESSARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.l79Z of 1996 APPELLANTS: Maldas <& another -Versus- RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Present Miss. Sharmila Singhai, counsel for the appellants. Shri Arvind Shukla, Panel Lawyer for the State. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble^Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. ORAL JUD6MENT (20-7-2011) 1. This appeal is directed against the jud9ment of conviction and order of Sentence dated 30-9-1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir in S.T. No.440/1992 whereby learned Addti'ional Sessions Judge after holding the appellants guilty under Section 325 of the IPC, sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 3 months. 2. According to the prosecution, the incident took place on 23-9-1992 at about 6 pm when the present appellants gave blow of lathi on complainant Tikaram, causin9 7 injuries, out of which 4 were contusions and 3 were lacerated wounds. Learned trial Court having found that the prosecution case is religble has convicted the appellants as above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, has restricted her arguments on the question of sentence and is not assailing the finding of guilt recorded by the tr'ial Court. Learned counsel, on the strength of observations made by the Supreme Court in the matters of Ayub and others Vs. State of U.P. {AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 1064} and George Pon Paul Vs. Kanagalet & Ors. {2009 AIRSCW 6701}, wouldsubmit that <the appellants remained in jail for about 6 days and the incident has taken i»-sa Ssa place in the year 1992, therefore, because of long passage of time, they may not be sent to jail and sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 4. The incident has taken place on 23rd September, 1992 i.e. almost 19 years back. At that time, the appellants were 45 and 35 years of age respectively meaning thereby at present their age would be 64 and 54 years. In the Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.-P/2), it is mentioned that the parties have previous dispute and enmity with regard to partition of land and cultivation. 5. In the matter of Ayub and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paras-6 & 7 of the judgment thus:- "6. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1976. Some of the appellants are more than 76 years of age and one of them has also died. In this context it must also be noted that some of the accused persons also received injuries. 7. Having regard to all these circumstances, we think that it is not a fit case where the appellants should be sent back to jail. In the result, w'hile their convictions are affirmed the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, we impose a fine of Rs.200/-on each of the appellants in default of which they will be sentenced to one month's rigorous imprispnment." 6. Similarly, in the matter of Seorge Pon Paul (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that because of long passage of time and other relevant factors, sentence of confinement till rising of the Court for offence under Section 326 of the IPC would be sufficient. 7. Asobserved in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, the incident has taken place about 19 years back. The origin of incident was previous land / dispute and the parties are resident of same village. Barve 8. Taking into consideration the long passage of time and that the appellants have remained in jail for 6 days, this Court deems it proper to reduce the sentence to the per'iod already undergone by them subject, however, to each of the apipellants paying an additional amount of Rs.2,500/- to the injured. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While upholding the conviction under Section 325 of the IPC, the appellants ar-e sentenced to the period already undergone by them. It is also directed that in addition to fine amount, each of the appellants shall pay additional amount of Rs.2,500/- to the injured. The appellants shall appear before the concerned CJM on 14 September. 2011 for payment of additional amount of Rs.2,500/- each to the injured. If the appellants fail to make payment of additional amount as directed above, they shall be required to undergo R.I. for one month and in that event the concerned CJM shall take steps to get the appellonts arrested for serving the sentence of one month. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge tette..