w [ ^^ <?v^ "• ^<A i\ \Cc4Cj^^-*'i •;":"-:-':- '•.'.MdvQca1'-' ^. io D. ;l u^^^. CFooobbs'm? / 6^ch (Cn^^ :^ m THE LHIGH C0VRT ^ HABHSTA PEUDESH JUO.ICAT0RE AT JABAI^JR. Cr.Appeal No. (^ ^^ of 1994. ^" /' Appellaiats •• 1 MaBbi ©Eianhoo, SOD ol fitiary Yadav,/ aged aboot 40 yearsy' f . - . / 2 Sraaaram, SGD oJE LotaoYadav, aged abot3t 52 years, / /' .' ^ B©thres^ents o£ villagie Kemgar^., P.S. Darri»®istrict Bilaspiar,(N.P.). Versos 'c"( '\ Re spoD dept s State o£ M.P. tlaroagh P.S. Darri, District Bilaspar, (M.P.). CRININAL APFEAL iMDER SECIIOH 57's<- (2) GF THE CGEE ©F CRIMINAL PR-OCEDURe. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1012 of 1994. APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Nanhi alias Nanhoo and another. State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Jitendra Shrivastava counsel for appellants. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for respondenVState. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. J.UDGMENT (28.01.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.8.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 328/1991 convicting the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section 436/34 of the Indian Penal code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs. 500 each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.3.1990 FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged by Kelhi Bai (Pw-1) alleging that on that day when she was cooking food, accused/appellants had entered her house and asked the whereaboyts of her husband. Thereafter, they caught hold of her hand with an intention to outrage her modesty. When she screamed, her mother in law and grand mother in law came there and tried to intervene in the matter and the accused/appellants had beaten them also. Thereafter, it is alleged that accused/appellant Nanhi alias Nanhoo set the house of the complainant on fire and thereby caused damaged to it worth Rs. 4,800. On the basis of FIR, investigation was done and accused/appellants were prosecuted under Sections 452, 354, 323 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under section 313 of the @ -^> _. Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellants for theoffence as mentioned above but acquitted them of the charge under sections 452, 354, 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his arguments only to the sentence part thereof. He submits that as the appellants have already remained in jail for a period of more than two months and the incident is said to have taken place in the year 1990, it would be in the interest of justice if they may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. To this, Counsel for the respondenVState has no objection. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is hereby maintained. However, the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. In the interest of justice, the amount of fine imposed by the Court below is enhanced to Rs. 2,500 each from that of Rs. 500 each. It is informed that the fine amount of Rs. 500 each has already been deposited by the accused/appellants. Thus now the appeltants shall pay a fine of Rs. 2000 each which would be payable to the complainant. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge np^