... .^l! CF0000057332 IH IHE HISH COURT O? HABHYA_E>&SDESH &T JABALPU& ^: CBI.APPEAL N0. -^ /l 991 ••t-»!*i. y 1^ •t^,^ '"•-»•»•>»*' APPBI<I.a»TS "!'"'-;; t^ / ff7 '!&; ^1I,^ ^:y ^ A' .^' ^i-' Q- SESPONDEMT ; 1. Satya Narayan Singb @ Karlya Ji Thakur, aged about 55 years son of Slirl aaghuveer Singb' O 2« I<ochan/aged about 30 years son of Shri Kanda Swami Gond.y Botb are residen-t of - Bag Bahs£ra» . Districts Raipur,(M.P«). VSHSUS - s State of Madhya Pradesh' APPBAL ONDER SECTIOH 374(2) OF THE GODE OP CRIMJHMi PROCEDORE °a- .SHBI :_K .1..KORI, E^.TS '^yr.^ "! ; " '• r>ui versus Sanra Naravan S:msh (d. Kariva Thalnir & A&r. Staie of Madhya Pradesh Shri Uttairi PEUidey, counsel for tiie appellants. Shri Vaibiiav Goverdhan, P.L. ibr the State. i..jr.t^. (11.03. 'T'his appes-1 is dii'ected against the judgns.erj.t dated 13.8.1991 oassed bv fhfi Additionsl Sessj.ons Judge Mahasainund in Session Trial No. 204/9.0 coiwicting the accused/appeUaii.ts for the offence punisfaable under Section 333/34 of tlie IPC and. sentericuig tJiem to undergo ngorous iiapnsoniQeiit tor one veai-. 2. Brief facts of Uie case are that ou 15.3.90 FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged by the coinplainaiit Mobd, AU (P.W.-2) altegiilg in. it th.at he is an emriovee of MPSRT'C and on Uie said date i.e. oii 15th Marcll 1990, when he was perfbrming tlie duty ofconductor in fiie bus bearuig registratioa no. MBM 2514, at aboiit 7.30 p.in. at Bagbehera bus stop then; was soxae dispute bettveen hiia aad the appeUaats .in relation to refund of excess fair of Re.l. It is furfher aBeged' fhat tlie accused/ appellauts assaulted him with the help of club as a lesult of which he sustaioed various iajuries. After invest^atiou tlie police bas fUed chaUaii agaiast ffae accused/appeUants under Sectiou 325, 333/34 of fhe IPC. However the Court has fi-ajned the chai^e against fhe appeUants for fhe offen.cc uilder Section 333/34 offhe iPC. / r^ 3. In support of its case, the prosecution has exsjnined niae witnesses. Statenient of tlie accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 o.fth.e Cr.P.C. ia. which fhev denied the charges leveUed aeauist thera and r>leaded their ilinocence and false inLpucation iii the case. This apart, ooe defence witness has also been examined by fh.em. iu support of (heir case. 4. Counsel for the appeUsuits subiaits that. he is not pressiag fhis appeal as far as it relates to coaviction part of the impugned. judginent aad would confine his arguinent to fhe sentence part thereof onlv aiid submits Tliat the appellants be given tlie benefit ofprobation ofOfienders Act. In the altemative, he subjaits that if Uie benefit of probation of ofienders carLG.ot be given to fhe accused/appeUaats, reasoaable fine inay be unposed on fhem. but they inay not be sent behind bars. Accoixliag to h.iru, fhe appeUants have already reiaained ia jaii for about 3 days, the appellant N0.1 wbo has allegedly caused the iQain injuries is aged about 75 years wliereas the appeUant N0.2 is now aged about 50 years: fhat fhe iacident is said to have taken place about 20 vears back: the iacident had occurred on account of trivial issue where th.e complainaat/conductor had refused to refund the amount to ttie appeUants; fhat fbfi incident had taken place all of a sudden in a spur of raoraeut, ao useful purpose would be seived in again sending Uie appellasits in. jail aad it woiild be in fhe iaterest ofjustice ifthe sent.en.ee iinposed on fheni is reduced to tlie period already by theia. 5. Subiaission of fhe counsel for fhe appellaats have been opposed by the State counsel on the ground fhat ttie coBlpIainaiit was a govemm.eiit. servant and was beaten by tiie accused pei-soas and one of his teefh wa.s also broken £m.d &erefore no leniencv should be shown. to tlie appeUatits. 6. After consideruig fhe entire evideace, in particular the nature of imury caused to the coinplauiaEit, I ain not ?^ •-•<;» 'l ^ j^ ^? '^^sgl^ iucmied to graat benefit of probation of offendei-s Act to fhe its. Thus, coiisidenng th.e fact that the appeliaiit No. 1 is now aged about 75 years wliereas the appellant N0.2 is now aged about 50 years: the incident is said to have taken place 20 years back on a trivial issue, ythe appeUaats are reported to have reiaained ia jail for about three days, therefore the conviGtion part of fhe hn.pugned judgiaent is niaio.taiiied..; However, lookuig to the pecaliar facts and circuiiistances of tiie case fheir sentence is reduced to the period ah-eady iindergone by theia but, iii Ueu thereof, Ctie fuie of Rs. 6,000 each is imposed upon fhe appeUaiits and out of tliis amount of Rs. 12,000, Rs. 10,000 shaU be piven to the coniplauiant/victun. Ifthis fiae aiaount of Rs. 10,000 is not paid to the com.plauiaiit wifhia. a period of tliree m.onfhs froBi the date of copy of fhis oi~der the sentence awarded by the Court below shall staad restored. The appeal fhus, pai-tly succeeds. --^7--------- Pritinker Diwaker Judge