.s^s f.'..- fil IS THB HI©HCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH OF BILA8PTO6 CKIMSSAL RBVISIOII HO.^^.^JSOOS INTHESaATTEROF: 1. TOPU aged abouf 30 year^ S/o Sh> MahetBrvi Ram. Sahu 2. KSQBl HAM aged about 28 years S/ o Sh. Mahetaru Rain S@hu Both residents: Vffl. - Patora, Thana & Tahsil . Beria, Distt. - Diirg [C.G.j PETmONERS / ACCUSED [IN JAIL] VERSUS i/1 ; <? STATE OP CHHATTISGARH .s ^^f ^.ff ^/ c>: RESPQNDENT s gECTIOH 39r ^ffTH 401 OF o CmMISSrAL PROC23D?mE CODE 1973 <° ..^^ ^> HIGH COURT OF CMMATn»OARHAT BILASPOR SB : HOITBUS MR. jvsnc^ pmniuasRDiwvc^^ CR.RBV.NO. 374/2002 APPUCAHTS RB8PONDENT yersus Topu Ram & Another State ofChliattisgguii Smt SavitaTiwari, counsel for fhe applicaats. Shri Ashish Gupta, P.L. for fhe State. RBVISUON VnDBRSBCTKWI 397/401 GPn^CfWBOV^ ORDBR (01.07.2011) Present revision arises oat of tbe jiadgnyei^ msd cmtey ^terted 4.4.02 passed by fhe Add3tional Seasions Judge, Bemetara, Distdct Durg ia Cr. A, No. 84/88 convictmg fhe accused/applicaiits under section 325/34 IPC and sentenced fhem to iitidexgo'l?! for si?c montiia aad to pay fine ofRs, 100 each. 2. Brieffacts offhe case are that ata 29<5,94 accused/applicaiits assazilted fheir father and mofher namely Mehataru (P.W.-l) & Fagni Bai (P.W.-5), The matter was mformed to fhe police aiid exxtry was inade in the rojnamcha ^anha 0x1 the saiae day itseK Based 0x1 thiSy PIR was registered agaiast fhe accused/appUcaiits 6n 16.6.94 uxider Section 325/34 IPC. After iavestigatioa, challanwas filed on 26.6.94 for the offence under Sectloii 325/34 IPC however, wliile feaming char^e, leamed trial Judge has fitamed fhe eharge mider SecfiDns 323 & 325/34 IPC. 3, So as to hold fiie accueed/applicaats guilly the praee^xitioii has exaaimed'as maoy as 09 wifcaesses, Statement of the accused/appUcants were also rccorded under Section 313 ttf fhe ^sst:K^\ ,/r" "^m '^ K / ^ '..'Y '^C^' ^^^y^- "^.^y ® Cr,P.C. ia which fbey denied fhe chai^ges aBegcd againat ttiem and pleaded Ifaeir ianocence aad false impBcation m fbe caae- r s. y 4, After hearmg fhe parties, by fhie ixnpugxied jiidgmexit, leamed trial Magistrate convicted the accused/appMcaxita uxxder Seetioas 323/34 & 325/34 IPC however m appeal, fhe appeUate Coiirt has acquitted ftie accused/appUcants under Section 323/34 but has maioitaiaed fheir conviction luider Section 325/34 IPC, 5, Contention of Smt Tiwari, counael for fhe appUcaats is fhat on account of some faiudly dispute xximor iacideiit had tBten place whiclx was subsequentity" exaggerated by fhe witDiesses. She ftirther subixrfts fhat tihe statenient offhe witnesses are not TOfiable aad fherejfore tlie Courts below ougfat to have acqmtted tfae aociised/applicaats. 6, On the other hand siipportmg fhe judgment iuipugned it has been argued by Shri Ashish Gupta^ coiuisel for the State fhat statement of Mehataru (P.W.-l), Pagni Bai (P.W.-5), father and inoftier of the accused/appMcants & Dasinat Bai (P,W^4) haye beeai diity supported by Dr, S.A. Maagde (P.W,-9). 7, Heard counsel for the parties aad perused tfae materiril ou rcconl^ From fhe statemeut ofvictmis aad the wit&esses, it is appareait that on ttie date of iacident, accused/appUcants assaulted their parents. It is xuifortunate that on account 6f land dispute fbe poor parents have been assaulted by fhe sons and fhe medical rcport alao supports the case of prosecution. That apart both fhe courta below afber consMermg fhe entire evidence have given a concuroent landiaig aad I find no rcasoa lo &aterfere wifh the judgments of fhe court below and accordmgly, fhe same is maintained. 8< At tfais stage, it has been poiatod oiit by Smt Tiwari, coiinsel for the appUcants flmt fhe appHcants rcmabied m jail for about 5 monfhs axid thereforc their sentence be reduced t6 ttie peiiod aln^dy undergone by tlieiai, To fhius, counaMsl for fhe State has xio sedious obiectlon. -<:y^ '^.:^\^ ••b 9, GoasMeritog fhe facts smd circumstsmces of fhe <3ase^ in particular fhe fact fhat fhe iacident had takexi place in fhe year 1994 ie, about 16 yeare back, fhe appBcants have already rcxaainod ia jail for about five montfas, fhis Court is of the view that it would be ia fhe iaterest of justice if fhe jafl sentenee impoaed 011 the accused/apiplfcaiits is reduced to fKe period alreaxiy laaider^mie by fhem. As fhe axxnised/applicants are reported to be on bafly theirbail bonds stand discharged. 1 Revision ihus, partty succeeds, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge j 1