-•^•\J^^.''\-~^'\;'U\.^-..^^'L\ ^••L.-^\.-^^^^^--L V-^'u^'^^\^'^'^<^^r'^-'l/^A/^'r^r^'^'V\.-l''^''^-^/^'\^^Tu'L.'^TV-t^ c. •:•£!(•i- ^o o oc'c; i; c-co e.stso-oc c'o D yo 0(;e<;o uooCc; ci^ EJ ti c ucu'oogo'(;.o'e-;j:<.ry&';';;.;^n';9..o-o ooo'yoooo OOBO o.o IN THE HIGUeStfRT SF flaa.IClireaE AT BIUSPUB (CmATTISGflBN) Crialiaai ippesl No» 57'3 /ZflBI AppeJtlants(1} Tiritfi (taN S/8 HaKaBSartbI aged abeut 4Q yeaES» AeeBsed persBne. (2) Harilal |d.iae Gadala S/Q Satrughaa Sgbls, aged sboBt 20 yearst (3) San-fe Baa allas Gunku alias 8aB S/@ Raran Sabis aged about 24 yeatSjg (4) Satrt.ighan S/B Battit SaEtN agatl about 38 yaar^ ft.ll SesideBt ef sataBtani HBl»aU.a,K>eTte CityKufeualiKorba,Tab^&Bist;rict Korba (C.G.) —(APiK:I.IA:(»T?) -&S&- IRespoBdent-Tha Stata of CUaattissaTte —(BESMBBENl) CBiniNAL APPEA1. BSBEa SECT®N3?4(2) OF THE CRlBami. .P£°£%8&E-ES,EI£i-^ • ;l'f"s'i 11 r-i 1"'% HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPW Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Oiwakep Criminai Amwu hio. 516 of 2001 APPEy-ANTS RESPONDENT Tirith ftam <S otheps Versus State of Chho.ttisoorh Shri Neeraj AAehta,counsel for ths appellont. Appellants are presentin person before the Court'. Shri Vivek Sharma, PL for the State/respondent. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODI CRImINAL PROCEDURc JU&6MENT (05.04.2010) This oppeai is directed against the impugned Judgment dated 14.5.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Korba in Sessions Triat No. 192/1991 conyicting the cccused/Qppellants for the offence punishab'e under Ssction 323/34 of the Indian Pena! Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 months with fine of Rs. 800/-, in default of payment of fine to furt-hsr undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months on each counts. Brief facts of the cces csre thot on the basis of' Dehati Nalishl (Ex.P-8) dated 3.12.1990, F.I.R. (Ex.P-9) was registered on 3.12.1990 against the appelfants for the offences punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is a!leged that on 2.12.1990 the accused/appeilants have asscujted Rajkumar (PW-2), Ramashanker (PW-3) and Ramanuj (PW-4). After investigation, cha!lcm was fi!ed o"d the accused persons were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 30.7/34 of the Indian Penal Code. li ..ifSa 9. ^•g5^s- 's<v -SStB! its case. recorded 3. So as to hold the accused/appe!!ants guilty, has examined as mony as 10 witnesses in support' of Statements of the accused/appe'lants were also under Section 313 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure in they denied the charge Sevelied against them and pleaded innocence and fdse implicction in the case. 4. After hecring the parl'iss the trjal Court has acquitl-ed the accused/appellonts of the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of th.e Indian Psnal Code but convictsd cnd sentenced them for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 of the India" Pena! Code. Hence this apped. 5. Heard counsel for the porties and perused the materid avaijable on record inctuding the Judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellants submits that that he is not pressmg this appeal as far as it relotes to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would cwifine his argument to the sentence port thereof only. According to him, as all the appellants are middie aged persons, haye the family responsibility, the incident had taken ploce about 20 yeors back cuid the relation between the complainant and the accused persons have again becoms cordtat. and the fact that o.ppel!mts have already remained in jnif for aboyt three months, no useful purpos®wouid be served in sending them to jaii ond it woutd be m the interest,of justic®if the sentence imposed on them is reduced to the period aiready undergone by them. To This, counse! for the Stdte ha.s no serious 7, In view of above, the o.ppeo.1 is part-ly aliowed. Conviction pcirt of the impugned judgment is maintamed. Appellorsts ore reported to hgye remained i" io.il for about 3 rngnths and the .<?-^^^ ^ ;&;'aa.i° ? i((b!4iai!!ns« issr incident had taken ptace about 20 between the complainant and the cordiat, therefore their sentence te back and reiation fants again become reduced to the period ons by 8. Appeal thus part-iy succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker I7!7