cFJiiaouzssz ^J \^ ••:£^,^ ?^€ ^l ^Y? IN Y Heera Siagh ^onof Day&rem Sataarai, agefl 45 years/Besideat of Psndra, P.S. I.albagh Dlstt. Eajnaiadgaoa ?.T-P L"lff^ 7s. 'Ehe State of Maslhys. Fradesh APPSLUIi-3-, TITJAIL) affipot©®i2. ^- r CBIMIMi. APPSU, U/s.374(2) ^|ffl_?r-F.i.(. *« '.ivsss^yn'sfiLi-^z— 1^1 II IN TSS HIGH GOTO2 OF ii&DHZA PB&SESH s £2 3-ABAU'UE, ^LM^1.^1%?? d®l^i^i1 •s?'^ ^ •"' CBIMIH&L APPEAI, N0. -? ^ ^tf 1991, 1111 .t"C"6a;s <1»IU --;'<\. ''';iAi/v HI6HCQURT OF CHHATHS6ARH AT 8ILASPUR RESPON&ENT Criminal Apoeat No. 837 of 1991 Singh s/o D Stat® of M! Chhottisgarh') (no Shri Abhishek Sharrno. with Shri RQOD Nalk. coun-ssl for Shri Neeraj Mehta, PL for the State/respondent CRIMINAL AfPEAL UN&ER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCE&URE JU &6M E NT (31.03.201u) This appeal is directed agains!' the impugned judgment dated 14.05.1991 passed by Second Additiona! -Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 92/1990 conyicting the accused/appel!ant for the offence punishable under Section 304 part'-II of th®Indion Penal Code o.nd eentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for si?< yso.rs. 2. Case of the prosecution I" brief is that on the basis of merg intimation dated 21.12.1989 (Ex.P-24) lodged by one Halku Prasad - Ward Boy, entriss were made in the RojnQmcha Sonho. vide Ex.P-2 on 21.12.1989 itself ond it is alleged thort- one Bahnjrom (deceased) has done to death by accussd/appellant with the hetp of other co-accused name!y Ishwari and Hirondi iai. After inv^tigation, the present appello.nt and two other accused persons wers prosecuted for'the offencs-s punlshabls under Sections 109, 323 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. ^ h-£»s;lsstt> 1 '•i-SSSSt, ^ 7' lt;16iffi'liai!>>:' 3. So as to ho!d to accused/appe!lo.nt guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses in support- of its case. Statement of the accused/appeilant was also rscorded under Section 313 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure in which he denied the charges levelied agoinst him and pleaded his innocence and fajse imDHcation in the co.se. This witnesses namety Poniharin Bai (DW-l), and Risoharojn (DW-3) haye also been examingd bythe defence in supporf of jts cose. 4. After hearing the jMrt-ies the trial Court' has acquitted the co-accused nomely Ishwari and convicted the nresent appellant for L^^-,. ; , ypai (DW-2) under Section 304 - part- II of the -ence puni.sna&ie Pena! Code. H®n?-e TI*-' ^— .^ 5. Heard counsei for the part-ies and perused the materia! is not n parf' of 6. Counse! for pressing this appeal appellants submits t^ far as it reifftes to the impugned judgment and would confine his <x sentence part thereof only. According to appeliant is aged about 75 yeo.rs, is suffering from various disgases, ond his family condition is vsry pathetic. He has fited an application on 8.3.2010 for bringing cer!-ain facts on r-ecord in wh.ich it has been norrated that during the pendency of the oppea!, appeltosnt has !ost his wife Hiroundi Bai and also lost his son Ishwari. He submits that it is the appellant who look-s after his daughtsr ond the grand daughter Sonia and the. soid grand daughter is deaf and dumb. He furthsr submits that another son of the appellant Harishchand is missing since last 3 years ^. .^-,^.^;jS\i ?^^^':SI?." oind there is no other mo.ie memb®rin his fan'iily. Hs submits that oppeilant has already remoined in jait for Qbout two years oind five months, no usefu! purpose would be served in ssndin< him to Jsi! and it woutd be in the interest of ju-stice if the ay sentence imposed on hlm is reduced undergone by hlm. He placed streng reiiance on th®decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Msdhya Pradesh reported in 2004 (1) AA. submits that lenient yiew moy be given appe.!!o-nt. To this, counse! for the Stat 'j " the case of the is objection. 7. In yiew of above, the appeal is port'ly a! part of the tmpugned judgment is maintained, reported to hav®r'emained in Jai! for a period of two five months, is facing numerous probtems as pointed and, therefore, considering the totality of the case his sentence is reduced to the period atready underc He is on bail. Bait bond furnished by him stond dischorged. 8. Appeal thus part-ly succeeds. Pritinker Diwaker ie