„„ , © IN THB HI®HCOUKT OT eHHAITISGARH fS BILASPUR 'Q£±A£SS&.Z?^-Sf-^l APPBI.LANT <Sn-Jail) r' panchu @ Panchram S/o.Hiru R«m Nishadt Aged 23 years« R/o.sindhi celony. Gobra Navaparai P.S,Gebra-Navapara» D.i.stt. Raipur (C.G.) -•• "'y ^j^s/j fp~/^ ef' ^ Y,^ ^- VE RS U S . RESP®NDBNT s Sfeateef Chbattis garh ThroughsDistriet Magls-trate Raipur (C.G.) CRIMINALAPPBAL tINDER SBCTI0N 374 OF THB eaCCBIHa PROGEDURE GODE. i.^'-c 1 <&-s--^ ^.^ *h \ •fea ^ HI6H CWRT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BIUtSPL» Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Jusltee Pritinker &i«nl<er Cnminol Appeal No.792 of 2001 M'PBLLAW RE^QN&BNJT Panchu @ Panchram Vwaus Stcrte of Chhattisgarh Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, counsel for the oppellant. Mrs. Smita 6hai, PL foff the Stute/respondent. CMMINAL APPEAL UN&BR SECTION 374 ff) OF TOE C0t>6 OF CRWSW. PROCEC^RE JUD6MENT (28.03.2011) This appeal is directed cgainst the impugned judgment ond order dated 11.7.2001 passed by 7t Acklifional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Tr»l No. 153/2000 convicting the accused/appelkmt for the offence punidiable under Section 304 part rE of ihe Indian Perial Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 24.1.2000 a written reporl' (Ex.P-14) was lodged by complainant Tejin Bai (PW-10) stating •rtierein that on 3.1.2000 the accused/appellant and the decaised/accused Parmeshwar had killed her husband Sopal Kewat. As per the case of the prosecution, on the cbte of incident one musical system was being ptayed by Nond l&«mar, son ef the complainant Tejin Bai (PW-10) and deceased Sopat Ketwt, at that time Tejin Bai objected as to who-is playing the said musical instrument. It is further atleged thiit accused/appellont reached on the spot and had asked the compfainant Tejin Bai (PW-iO) thdt he is not ploying the said instrunwnt and thesaine is being played by her son Nand Kurnar, thereafter, -rtiere was some dispute betu»enthe accused/appellant and Tejin Bai (PW-10) and when the deceased ©opqlkewat intervened; he wos assaulted by the accused/appellant ;.ar !^"^-3S-E^'?tiS-?3m!3"^B^-.SSliHaiit'WfcaiBgiaSS! ^ ==i S~^ ;S wti»vi!sMSSi »asaiSWi»x^iS!iSssAt»'- ••• './< -• 1 : "'..&.& H \ ^. :JJ \"^y by spade whereas deceased/accused Parmeshwar has atso assautted him by means of wooden plank. On the bosis of this written report (Ex.P-14), after enquiry on 16.3.2000 F.I.R. pxP-15) was registered against the accused/appeltant Panchu and acaised/deceased Parmeshwar under Sections 302, 201/34, 506 pcrt EE of the Bidkin Penat Code. After complefion of investigation, cAa/fa»was filed on IS.5.2000 under Sections 302, 201/34, 506 part- II of the Indian Penal Code. . 3. In order to establish the guil-tof -the accused/oppellomt, the prosecution hasexamined as many as 12 witnesses. Statementof the accused/fflppellant vws also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr-P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled against kim and pleaded his innocenGe and false implicorfionin the case. This a|Xtrt, one witness rwmely Dinedi Kumar Yadav (&W-1) has also been examined by the defence irr support- of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced theaccused/cppellant for -the offence as mentioned obove. 5. Durin9 pendency of -the trial, co-accused Parmeshwar hous expired and, ther-efore, present appeal is confined to only in respect of Pdnchu © Panchram. 6. Heard counsel for the parties cnd perused •rtte material availabte on record including the jud9ment impu9ned. 7. Gounsel for the appeltont submits -that he is not pressing 'rtiis appeal as far as it re^ites to the'conviction part' of the impugned judgment and would have a Ijmited prayer with r-espect to the sentence part- thereof only. He submits thot as the appellant has alreody remained in Jail four dbout twoyears and.nme mohttis, iSGident occurred all of a sudden between three brotiiers ahd one )L._ brother has been killed in the incident, second one has expired durm9 pendency of the trial and nowappellant is the onty person to take care of -the entire family, the incident took placeabout 10 years back, he would be obtiged if the oppellant is r«teased immediately. He submits 1+iat it would be in the interest of Justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to •the period already undergone by him. To this, coynsel for the state has no objectien. ' ! 8. In view of above, the oppeat is part-ly allowed. Conviction part of Ihe impugned Judgment is maintained. Appellant is reported to have remained in jail for about two years and nine mon-ths, incident occurred all of a sudden between three brothers cnd one brother has been killed in -Hie incident, second one has expired during pendency of the triat <md now oppellant is the only person to take care of the entire family, the incident took place about 10 years back, and therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstorices of the case, his sentence of ten years is reduced to that of four years rigorous imprisonment. However, the appellant is directed to deposit fine amount of Rs.8,000 in the Court below which would be payabte to the wife of the deceosed Tejin Bai (PW-10). As the accused/appellant is reported to be in Jail, he be set free after comptetion of sentence imposed on him by this court. This order shatl not operate if the appellant faits to deposit the fineamount. , 9. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^