CF0000057978 IH_jrHB BIGH CO&R3? ,OSL.WABirt^_ A]SSH_aT_jk^E^OR (^: CriinlBal-Appeal ETo.^'5^' _/95 ,^1 ASPEtLANT Aceused • Harl ..aged, aboat 23 years son of Shrl Veer SlngR Miiuclya resldeBfr of Madunar, p.s. KQ<3agaon, Elstrlct Bastar , • .Vnrsas • „- • r; :^; WeK:Bas'eS;(3g^3,y,, RESPCMDENT .::. . . The S6ate-ofM.pg, thr'cnagh P.S. Kodagaon, iXstt. Jagdalpur (Bastar) H.P.• ' .' ' ; . r-'~> gy eRIMIHAL_ PBAL_TjgDE^SEeTIOB 374 OP THE COIE OP'CRIMISAL PRGCEDCJRE' V • . t ^' HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Criminai Aooeaj Np_, 657 of 1995 APPELLANT Hari son of Veer Sinqh Muriya Versus RESPONDENT State of Madhyo. Pradesh AAs. Nirupama Bojpai, counsel for ths appellant- AAr. Ravindra Agrawal, PL for the State/respondent. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CO&E OF CRIrtINAL PROCE&URE JU &6M E NT (28.07.2010) This appeai is directed against the impugned judgment A order dated 20.4.1995 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jagddpur in Sessions Trial No. 333/1992 whereby convicting the accused/dppeltant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous r imprisonment for six months, and to pay fine of Rs. 250/-. 2 . Brief facts of the case are that on, 24.3.1991 F.I.R. (Ex.P-1) was lodged by Mdnira"' (PW-1) aileglng in it that on 23.3.1991 at about 8 pm when he was near his house, he was assaulted by the accused/appellant Hari and the acquitted accused Arjun as a result of which he sustained injury on his Kead cnd neck, Dheenaram (PW-2) has suffered injury on his head and Faghi Bai (PW-4) has alsosustained abrasion on his neck. Based-on this, offenc%under Sections 307, 323/34, 324 of, tbe Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused/appellant. After investigation, chailan was filed on 14.4.1991 iriconnection with the offence under Section 307/34 of the-lndjdn PenalCode. ^^ ^.!»""-a-^ .f^^. "\ '-"^. "li.e' ••iiai.,;i^j.<<!y 3. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined as mmy as 8 witnesses in support- of its case. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code 6f Crimina! Procedure in which they denied the charge levetted against them csnd pteaded their innocence and false implication in thecase. 4. By the impugned judgment co-accused Arjun has been acquitted whereas the present appelioint 1-tari has been convicted for assaulting Dheenaram only. Hence this appeal. 5. Heard counsel for the part'ies and perused the material avaiiableon record including'judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the dppeltant submits that she is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned Judgment and would confine her argument to the sentence part' thereof onty. According to her, as the appellant has already remained in jail for about 15 days, incident is said to have taken place in the year 1991 i.e. about 19 years back, that the incident took ptace on account of trivial issue of consuming tiquor (Salfi), that during trial the appiication was fil®i-forcompromising the matter but the same was dismissed on technical yound, no useful purpose would be served in / -~ sending hiro fo jail and it would be in the interest of justice if thesent.enGe imposed upon Rim is reduced to period already undergone by .him. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. 7.; .In view df above, the appeal is part'ly allowed. Conviction :part-6f the itnpugned judgment is maintained. As the appellant •••^•'i^^ —'iii, 1 > "^- •% » ^ ' is reported to have remained in jail for about 15 days, thot on the same facts co-accused Arjun has been acquitted by the court below and, therefore, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Appeal thus part-y allowed. ,-CA / 1 f^i} Pritinker Oiwakt'r Judge •• / 'tt. d