iii?::i'ii'1iii KBIR BliiSi 'i»;E» s(i8 !i,il? nii il!l<;i|:^ •ss iV<.^&f^ !li.®H iiiti:ya« ^ KWs •^ ^ .:r:ii CF06[>0059'355 CT TBB HIOH CCORT O? IttBHZA ffiAE^H A.T JABALPDR CRIMUI. APPB&L SO, 1. GhBotelsl; aged 31 yearsa j^ 2, Babulals aged 21 3» Narad, aged 30 years. All sons of GBBesh Sfafivas,' -'-r1 Tillage Siadtol, Polica Statioa ShlTruiarayaa, Tabsil JaBjglr» »fttAK'ELLUnS VERSUS State of Madhya Prsdesh, CSD4IHAI. AFPE4L imi-ffi SBCTTCS 37lt(2) OT THE COES OF CRIMIHAL ISQGBBURS lllt' i'm:t »• :r ir .«f!ees ..y^""^, ^' !*^. ^ ^. ^; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon.,IVIr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 553 of 1991. APPELLANTS RESPONDENT VERSUS Chhotelal and others. State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Yogeshwar Sharma counsel for appellants. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PL for respondenVState. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIWIINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (15.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.5.1991 passed byAdditional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 109/1987 convicting the accused/appellant No.1 u/s 323/109 IPC, appellant No.2 u/s 323 IPC and appellant No.3 u/s 304-1 and 323 IPC and sentencing appellants 1 and 2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and appellant No.3 to seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304-1 and one year u/s 323 IPC. 2. Case ofthe prosecution in brief is that on 29.12.1986 FIR (Ex. P-18) was lodged by Madanlal (PW-1) alleging that on that day at about 5 p.m. accused/appellant assaulted him, his father Bodhuram and his brother Parasram. It is alleged that appellant Narad gave an axe blow to deceased Bodhuram, accused Babulalhad assaulted him with club and accused Chhotelal had abetted him for commission of the offence. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication inthe case. This apart, one Ghasiyaram (DW-1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case. ^-\,,>"<sg, '"ah'>^!-A f%,. %»J^ ":l^..v; —2— 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted the accused/appellants for the offences mentioned above. However, co- accused Shivlal has been acquitted of the charge levelled against him. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellants submits that he is notpressing 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, appellant No.3 namely Narad has already served the sentence imposed on him by the trial Court and appellants No. 1 and 2 namely Chhotelal and Babulal have remained in jail for about five months. He submits that the appellants are brothers and the incident had taken place about 24 years ago on account of entry of cock belonging to the complainant party in the premises of co-accused Shivlal, no useful purpose would be served in sending them to jail and it would be in the interest ofjustice if the sentences imposed on them are reduced to the period already undergone by them. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. 7. In the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Appellant No.3 Narad has already served the sentence imposed on him and appellants No. 1 and 2 Chhotelal and Babulal are reported to have remained in jail for a period of about five months, and therefore, their sentences are reduced to the period already undergone by them. 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. ^,-.7-~- Pritinker Diwaker Judge