i%^-^;"'ftl-;33tfs?S.- .^-^ •^•^' ^: '/ . •1 n HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1992. APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Radheshyam son of Laxman Prasad State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Awadh Tripathi counsel for appellant. Shri Neera jMehta PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIIVIINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (11.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.1.1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No. 99/1991 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 436 IPC andsentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonmant forthree years and pay fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 9.2.1991 at about 7 a.m. FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged by Bihari Lal (PW-1) alleging that on the previous night as he was not keeping well, he had gone to sleep at about 2 a.m. and at about 3 a.m. in the early morning after hearing some noise his wife Rambati (PW-2) woke up and when she came out of the house, she saw that there was fire on back side of the corner of their'house. Thereafter, his wife immediately rushed to the backsiae/of the house to call people and saw her real brother-in- taw'running from the spot aft6i*^etting his house on fire. Incident was narrated to him by his wife and thereafter the report was lodged. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 06 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellantwas also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal' Proeedure in which he denied the charges levelled \\- T\ ^'w:i^..^. %..-^ "Q .y ^ against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant for the offence as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant 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 appellant is aged about 60 years and suffering from various diseases, that he has already remained in jail for about four months, that the incident had taken place in the year 1991 and the relations between the appellant and the complainant have become cordial, no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail and 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.counsel for the State has no serious objection. 7. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Appellant is reported to have remained in jail for a period of about 4 months and therefore his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine imposed by the Court below is enhanced to Rs. 4,000 from that of 1,000, out of which Rs. 3,000 would be payable to the complainant within a period of three months from today. Ifthis amount of Rs. 3,000 is not paid to the complainant within the ti'me gtipulated, the sentence awarded by the Court below shall stand restored. .8. Appeal thus partlysucceeds. S{<./ Pritinker Biwa&er Judge