..(» ,p "';-;^ V4 ......I. ^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR APPELLANTS: RESPONDENT: Criminal ADDealNo.172 of 1992 1.. Maricharan son of Ledwa Binjwar, aged about 35 years, 2. Chamruson of Khorbahara Binjwar, aged about 38 years, 3. Anandram son of Heeralal Yadav, aged about 50 years, All residentsof village Kalar Tarap, P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur (MP) (nowCG) Versys " State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) through P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur(M.P.)(nowC.G.) {Appeal under Section 374 (2)of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973} 'Present: Miss Sharmila Singhai, counsel for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Panel Lgwyerforthe State/respondent. Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL JUDGIVIENT (17-6-2010? ^ 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviGtion & order bf sentence dated 10-1-1992 passed.by the 4 Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.265/90, whereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellants guilty for commission ofoffence under Section 436 ofthe I.P.C., sentenced each ofthem to undergo R.l. for six months & payfine 6f Rs.200/-, in default of paymentoffinetofurther undergo R.l.fortwo months. f 2. Convictjon is impugned on the ground ftiat the trial Court has convicted the appelJants without any cogent and reliable evidence, and thereby committed illegality. 3; Case of the prQsecution, in brief, is that on accountof previous enmity, ^it&e.appellants burnt the house of complainant Panchram (PW-1) by % using kerosene oil and thereby committed mischief by fire which is punishable under Section 436 of the I.P.C. Panchram (PW-1) lodged F.1.R. vide Ex.P-'f. Burnt articles were seized vide Ex.P-2. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-3. Damage panchnama was prepared vide Ex. P-4. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bilaspur, from where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. 5. In ordef^o prove the guiit of the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses. The accused wereexamined underSection 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstanGes appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. They have also examined defence witness Sunhar Singh (DW-1) who has deposed that both the parties were in inimical terms. 6. After appreciating the evidenceavailable on record, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appgllants in the aforesaid manner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and record of the trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the light of the evidence.of/Panchram (PW-1), Gopal (PW-2), Santosh Singh (PW-3) & K.C. Gupta (PW-4), she is hot disputing the conviction of the appellants , under Section 436 of the I.P.C., but shewant to argue on the questionof'' seritence. Learned counsel further submits that the incident took place in theyear 1990 and the trial Court has sentencedthe appellants to -;"undergo R,l..for six months. Theappellants were in custody frorh 24-6- -7"-' •..-:-'."•. , ^ . '. : i i.t| 90 to 16-7-90 for about twenty-two days. Considering the lenient view taken by the trial Court, again sending the appellants to jail would not serve any purpose and by imposing appropriate fine, the purpose of criminal justice may be served. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the appeal and submits that thetrial Court has already taken leriient view. 10.1n the present case, conviction of the appellants is based on the evidence of Panchram (PW-1), Gopal (PW-2), Santosh Singh (PW-3) & K.C. Gupta (PW-4), their evidence inspire confidence, it is trustworthy and safe to rely. 11.As regardssentence, the appellantswere in custodyfrom 24-6-90 to 16- 7-90 for about twenty-two days. After lapse of twenty years, again sending the appellants to jail to serve the remaining five months of; imprisonment would not serve any purpose. Soma 12.Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction ofthe appellants is hereby maintained, but instead ofthe sentence of R.l. for six months & fine of Rs.200/-, theappellants are hereby sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each. The appellants had already paid Rs.200/- each, each ofthem shall pay the remaining fine amount of Rs.1,800/- within two months from today,' faitihg which they shall undergo additional R.l. for six months. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge