CF0000060962 -um§ «&nw §& Qm&g %¥ I N THE'HIGHOUR‘O.D ‘CTFMAHYA PRAD‘T ESHA JBAL APUR. ‘\4 Criminal Appeal No; ‘ 96; , » r ALDPELLA‘ ( in jai \ itetr s/o Besahu Chandra. a am ged abou € ears. ‘ 65 y Vishnulgo Dularsai, aed about‘2 // g 5 ea yrs. Kisnu A70 Duiarsai.vaed about 3 / Yearsi‘ / D1gamb$;/;/o Ganpat, aged aboL 2 'ears. y All R/o Vlllae Murlleeh,‘011c tatien‘3hija1pur, Dlstt— Biaspur. ~V r s ” e s u ~ a , i ate o£ M.‘P ’ c..~o Resonaents~ p }j“’/:’ i Cap}! a? f’e‘man Wxtgfz‘immesf CRIMINAL APPEALVUNDER SECTION 374(2 ' / DE OF CRIMINAL ODE 3. ‘wAw“ggg;;w MS 5 g 2 t 3 »_ g dPe S, l ¢he st . x : i t ‘o ; % ‘ilg{J ’ ) CO PRCEUR 197 ‘( HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT-BILASPUR Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Criminal Appeal No. 97/1996 APPELLANTS Jeetram and others Versus RESPONbENT Sta€e of Madhya Pradesh Shn RaVI Bhagat counsel for the appellants. Smt Smlta Ghal PL for the State X CRIMINAgAgPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 {1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL ‘ . PROCEDURE i A This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 601.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti (Bilaspur) in Sessions Trial No. 78/1993 convicting accused/appellant No.3 Kishu for the offence punishable under Section 307 and accused/appellants 1, 2 ’ and 4 (namely Jeetram, Vishnu and Digamber respectively) u/s 307/34 IPC and‘sente'tcing each of them to undergc rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs. 500i in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months, for respective offences. 2. racts of the case In brief are that on 15 7 1992 FIR Ex P 1 was lodged by complainant Saukhi Lal (PW-1) alleging that on 14 7 1992 at about 11.15 p.m. when he was sleeping In his house, his father Balad Ram (PW—2) asked to him whether he had gone to the hodse of someone to which he replied in negative. Thereafter, his father is said to have informed him that one Jeetram (accused/appellant No 1) was calling him. Further case of the prosecution Is that Saukhl Lal (PW-1) Baladram (PW- 2) and Banshllal (PW 3) went near the house of one Gopal where some Panchayat meeting was gorng on and It Is alleged that there was some hot talki between Digamber (accused/appellant No 4 herein) and Saukhl Lal (PW—1) and then Vishnu (accused/appellant No.2) assaulted Saukhl Lal (PW—1) with club, accused/appellant No.3 namely Kisnu assaulted his father Balad Ram (PW—2) with axe and accused/appellant No.1 Jeetram assaulted his younger brother Banshilal (PW-3) with club. lt is also allegedlthat accused/appellant No.4 Digamber was exhorting to kill the JUDGMENT ‘ (06.04.2011) ~2— injured persons. Based on this FIR, offence undelf Section 307/34 IPC was registered against the accused/a’ppeilants and after investigation chailan \ivas flied by the police on 30.9.1992. 3. so as to hold the‘accused/appeiiants guilty, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the ‘Q accused/appeliants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of l Criminai Procedure in which they denied the charge Ieveiied against them and pleaded their innocence and faise‘implication in the case. 4. After' hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and {sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned above in paragraph No.1 of this ludgment. 5. Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as conviction part of the judgment impugned is concerned and would confine his arguments to the sentence part of the “same only. He submits that out of the total jail sentence awarded by the Court below, accused/appellant No.3 Kisnu has already remained in jail for three years, five months and 16 days whereas the total detention period of accused/appellants Jeetram, Vishnu and Digamber comes to‘ about one year. He further submits that the incident had taken place about 1‘8 years back and that too all of a sudden without there being any prior intention on their part to kill anyone, that the doctor who conducted radiological examination of the injured persons has not beaen examined by the prosecution, that there is no evidence on record ta show that the injuries suffered by the injured persons were grievous in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and further that none of them remained hospitalised for more than seven days. He thus submits that keeping in view all these circumstances, the sentence imposed on the accused/appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned. ‘r'vx. ’ x W“ f @@ 7. As the counsel for the accused/appellants Is not pressmg this appeal as far as It relates to conVIctlon part of the judgment Impugned _3_. 1 ; conwctlon of the appellants recorded by the Court below rs qhereby maintainled. However, taking into consideration the fact that the incident had taken place about 18 years back and that too all of a sudden without being actuated by premeditation that none of the Injured remained hospitalised for more than 7 days and that the accused/appellant No 3 Kisnu has remained in Jail for three years five months and 16 days whereas the detentlon period of remaining three I e Jeetram Vishnu and Dlgamber comes to about one year and further keeping In View the role aSSIgned to them, this Court Is of the conSIdered opinion that It would be in the interest ofjustice if the sentence imposed on them is reduced to the period already undergone by them subject to' enhanc'ément of fine amount.‘ t 8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the eludgment impugned is maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on the accused/appellants by the Court below is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The sentence of fine is however enhanced to Rs. V2000 each from that of Rs. 500 as has been imposed by the Court below. As there are four accused/appellants in this. case, the total fine amount coming to Rs. 8,000 would be disbursed to the injured persons three injnumber in equal proportion Failure in this shall make appellant Klsnu remain In jall for SIX months whereas the other three accused I e Jeetram Vishnu and Dlgamber shall have to remain In jail for one year 9. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal succeeds in part./: