|||H|||||l|||||||||H|H|H||||i| 103 .. ... .. ‘ !GH COURT OF GHHATTLSGARH AT B!LA$PUR SINGLE BENCH: Hon’ble Shri Pritinker Diwaker: J crimina! An: Qea! No. 187611 996 APPELLANTS Shyam La! and Another Vs. Resgondent State of Madhya Pradesh fCrimina! Aggeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C.) Present: Shri MD. Dhote and Shri Jaydeep Yadav; counsel for the appellants. Shri Neeraj Mehta, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL JUDGMENT (03.05201 1) A The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.10.1996 passed by the Additional $essions Judge, Dhamtari inSessions Trial No.1OI1 996 convicting the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under $ection. 323/34 “of indian Penal C-ode and sentencing each of them to undergo R.I. for one year, pay tine of Rs.700/- for causing injury to complainant Amresh, RJ. for six months and pay fine of Rs.250./- for causing injury to Bhagawan Singh and Rt. for six months and pay dne of Rs.250l— for causing injury to Nalini, in default of payment of tine to further undergo R.!. for three months. Ail the sentences were directed to run concurrently. (i 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.09.1995, FIR\(EX"-%P/8) was lodged at out post Bhakhara by injured Amaresh Kdmar Sahu (PW-6) alleging in it that about two months before the date of incident, accusedlapgiiant No.2 had taken a ioan of Rs.1,400,l— from him. lt is further alleged that the complainant Amresh demanded back the money from the accused/appellant No.2 time and again v, howeyer instead of returning the money to him, accused/appellant No.2 threatened him. He further alleged that on 16.09.1995 at about 6.00 gm. when he was returning after attending nature's call, the aocusedlappeiiants, who were H N i u_d i i l q l e $ n dt h we r S 0 3. n orer to establish guilt of the accused/appellants, the prosecution examind as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellants were also recod under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which they denied the charges leveied gainst them and pleaded innocence and false implication in’the case. 4. By the impugned judgment. the trial Court tugh acquitted the accused/appellants under Section 307 of the IPC, has convicted them uner Section 323134 of the IPC. 5. earned counsel for the accused/appellants submit that hey are not pressing this appeal so far as it relates to conviction patt of the judgment impugned and would confine their argument to the sentence part of the same only. They submit that the incident had taken place about 15 years back, appellant No.1 is now aged about 5.7 years whereas appellant No.2 is 38 years, the relation between the complainant party and the appellant has become cordial. the appellants have remained in iaitforseight days, no useful purpose would be served in sending back the appellants to jail at this stage and therefore, their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 'rg ted h.d..g somewhere there, senly came before him, caught hold of his hand and assaulted him. He further alleged that after intervention of some people, somehow he could escape from the clutches of the aoeused/eppellante. However, when he reeohe l his . house, the accused persons also reached there and again > . assaul him, hi father Bhagawan Singh and his sister Nalini. Based on this FIR, offence under ection 307/34 of the IPC was registered against the accused persons. Later o, FIR was transferred to P.$. Kurud and crime No.302/95 was registered. lnjureNalini Bai (PW-1), Bhagawan $ing (PW-2) and Amaresh (PW-6) re . sent fof medical examination. After investigation, Chatlan was tiled on 17.1 1 .1995 under ection 37/34 of the IPC against the accused persons. I d e r_e a a ho d L t 6. 0n the other hand, opposing the prayer, Shri Neeraj Mehta, !eamed couns‘e! for the State submits that the victims may be compensated by enhancing the nne amount. ‘E 7. iHeard learned counsel fot the parties, perused the materiai available on record, including the judgment under challenge. 8. ‘ Considering the facts and eircumstances of the case, the conviction part of the im‘pugned judgment is maintained. However looking to the fact that the incident had taken place 15 years back, at the relevant time, the accused persons were young and now they must be aged about 57 and 3? years and also considering that the relationship between the complainant party and the accused/appellants has become cordial. the accused/appellants remained in jail for eight days, this Court is of the view that it would be in the interest of justice if the jail sentence imposed on the accusedlappellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them subject to enhancing the tine amount. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The jail sentence imposed on them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, in lieu thereof, the appellants are directed to pay a tine of Rs.1000l— in addition to the tine amount awarded by the trial Court before the trial Court within a period of six months from date of receipt of copy of this order. lf the finegZamount, as directed, is not deposited in the trial Court within the stipulated period, the appellants shall under go imprisonment for a period of two months../’/ ’i Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ,‘4- / l