“ @ Wm-avwwmywv‘ \f I Q v” G7 /> MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR. 9 \lé gf 194. IE Band: (Cr a x x /"" : . muemchand @ Khemrag Sen of Jai Singh Kumharpa ged ,aborf 26 Pollce years tatxon Resident Fraze/rpur of/ Basar. f x / , ‘‘ x Mahesh Sen of Hlraram Mundi, aged about 25 yeays, Resident of Nagarnar elice Station Frazerpur, Dlstt Bastar. f / The State of Madrgya gradesh x‘ .f TIcN 374(2)" OE THE CRmmAL PRQCEDURE coDE f 1 , a , t f , , F 1 *HE HIGH COURT OF / \ CRIMINAL APPEAL No. ,— Versus - R1 w m RESPQNDERT 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SEC E .i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 1994. APPELLANTS Khemchand alias Khemraj and another. VERSUS RESPONDENT" State 0f Madhya Pradesh. Shri Alok Dewangan counsel for appellants. \ Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 I2} OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (04.02.201 0) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.9.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdaipur, in Sessions Trial No. 154/1988 eonvicting the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and"sentenping him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. Since appellant Khemchand alias Khemraj is no more, appeal on his behalf abates and now it will be only in respect of appellant Mahesh. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 24.6.1987 after receiving an information to the effect that accused/appellant Mahesh was coming in a truck bearing registration No. MBS 9441 after committing the theft‘of teak wood, Depot Ranger P.N. Murthy (PW-1) along with his staff reached the spot and made the plan to intercept the said vehicle. When an attempt was made to stop—the vehicle which at the relevant time was being driven by accused Khemchand 7(since dead), in stead of stopping the vehicle, he tried to run over the depot ranger. On 25.6.1987 FIR Ex. (P—3) was\lodge,d by Depot Ranger P.N. Murthy (PW-1) on the basis of which offences under sections 307 and 392 IPC were registered against four accused persons. All the accused persons were tried for the offences under Vsect‘ions 307 and 392 iPc. @L» 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 07 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure In which they denied the charges ieveiied against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellants for the offence as mentioned above. By the same judgment accused Ramnarayan and Anil have been acquitted of all the charges levelled against them whereas the present appellants have though been acquitted of the offences under section 307 and 392 IPC, they have been convicted under section 379 IPC. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material/ available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this ‘ appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the judgment impugned. He however submits that the appellant is a reputed businessman of the area and as the case had originated in the year 1987 no useful purpose wouldbe served in sending him to jail at this stage and it would be- in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him, by imposing certain fine on him. This submission being undisputed by the State counsel appears to be reasonable. From the record it is borne out that the accused/appellant remained in jail since 25.6.1987 to 1.7.1987 and thereafter from the date of impugned judgment till 3.11.1994. ln other words, the appellant remained in jail for a total period of about 2 months. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the judgment impugned is maintained He is sentenced to the period already undergone by him However in iieu thereof imposition of fine of Rs 5000 being in the interest of justice is so directed / 8. Ordered accordingly Appeal thus partly succe%ed $ / ct t’ eats/’ ~ .. \ ‘ \ ef"&s°&e 4 \ \