-% ’gwg" Sin£$$ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. APPELLANT S 1 . Ramkhelawan ® Imelsu @ Mitthu 2. s/o Bulcha, age 25 years, Occupation-Agriculture. r/o Darhora, P.S. Pratappur. District surguja. C.G. Fulsai s/o Bulcha, age 22 years . Occupation-Agriculture , r/o Darhora, P.S. Pratappur, District mrguja, c.G. VERSU The State of mahattisgarh, through P. S. A.J .K. Ambikapur , District surguja , C. G. cr.A. No. 83) [2004 S HIGH COURT aF CHHATTIS$ARH AT sILASPuR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminat Appeai No. 831 of 2004 Ramkheiawan @ Kheisu @ Mitthu and another VER$US APPELLANT (f ‘ RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Shri, A. K. Prasad, counsel for the appeHants. M$hri Pravin Das, Dy. GA. for the State. i C I IN L AP U DER SECTIO 74 2 O TH ‘ £ CQ$E OF CRIMINAE, PRO§EDURE J U D G M g N T (17.02.2011) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order / dated 16.09.2004 passed by special Judge, Ambikapur‘ in Specia! Sessiuns Case No. 105 of 2000 convicting the accused/appellants under Section 32S of IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simpie imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the. prosecution in brief is that on 30.06.1996 FIR Ex. P-6 was lodged by Hariiai‘ (PW-1) aiieging that on 29.06.1996 some altercation took ptace between him and the accusedlappeilants over pioughingof iand and the appeiiants /7 a threw him on the ground and appeliant No.1 Ramkheiawan i bpunched on his face as a resuit his one tooth got broken. Based on this report, offence under $ections 325/34 of IPC and 3 (1) (x) of $cheduied Castes and Scheduled Tribes l (Prevention of Corruption) Act was registered against the i appellants however the Court below framed charge against ' them under Sections 325, 325/34 of IPC and 3 (1) (v) of . ,c; ’ 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution haséxamined 14 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of tne accused/appenants were aiso recorded under section 313§of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied "\ the charges levened against them and pleaded their innocence and false impiication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the triai Court has acquitted the accused/appeiiants of the offence under Section 3 (1)(v) of Scheduled Castes and $cheduied Tribes (Prevention of Corruption) Act ‘but convicted and sentenced them for the offence under Seotion 325 of IPC. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the materiai available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Learned 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 argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident had taken place’in the year 1996,that the relations between the complainant and the appellants have again become cordial, that the appellants have already remained in jail for about 11 days, that the accused/appellants are middle aged persons having family responsibilities, no useful purpose (LW‘ would be served in sending back to jail and it would be in'the l i‘ / interest of iustice if the sentence imposed on them is reduced i ‘ to the period already undergone by them To this, counsel for the $tate has no serious obJection 7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed ConViction part: of'the impugned iudgment is maintained but looking to thel facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, that the incident had taken place in the year 1996, that the relations ’3’ bétween the complainant and the appeilants have again become cordial, that the appellants have already remained in jail for about 11 days, that the accused/appellants are middle aged persons having family responsibilities, the Jail sentence imposed on them is reduced to the period already undergone by them However, in lieu thereof the appellants are directed to pay a fine of Rs 4000 each and the entire amount of Rs.8,000 would be payable to the complainant (PW 1) within a petiod of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order If the fine amount as directed is not deposited in the trial Court Within the stipulated period the appellants shall under go imprisonment for a period of one year 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. s l- inkel’ D waker ,A‘ % ‘ pm d9 ‘