HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Juste Pritier Diwaker) Criminal Aeal No. 203 of 97 ' Gulab Gupta and another State of Chhattisgarh. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE hri Jitendra Shrivastava, counsel or h appeans. Shri Neera Mehta for th esondentlSate. JUDGMENT (11.05.2011), 7 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.01 .1 997 passed by the 2"“ Special Judge, Ambikapur in Special Case No.58/1 992 convicting the accused/appellants under Section 323 sentencing them to undergo R.l. for six months and pay tine of Rs.500/— each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional R.l. for one month. ‘ 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.08.1992 F.I.R. EXP-l was lodged by complainant Brij Mohan (PW-1) alleging in it that on 06.08.1992 his daughter—in-law Gendi Bai (PW—3) had inforhred him that there was some quarrel between her husband Ramruch (PW-2), Shiv Prasad and Gulab and after beating her husband, the accused persons have taken him along with them. Based on this F.l.R, offences under Sections147, 342, 323 of IPC and under Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were registered against five accused persons namely Gulab, Banshi, Ramsurat, Rajjan and Laxmi. After investigation, chailan was tiled on 04.09.1992 under the abovementioned Sections. ic nk pp 19 APPELLANTS VERSUS RESPONDENT Present: S f te llt j , PL e rpt @ 3. So as to prove the guilt of the accused/appellants, prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses whereas, two defence witnesses have been examined by the accused/appellants. Statements of the accused persons were alSo recorded under Section 313 of the Code of §riminal Procedure in which, they denied the charges ievelled against them and pleaded innocence. 4. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Judge has acquitted all the accused persons under Section 3(l)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also acquitted Banshi, Rajjan and Laxmi Narayan for the offences under Section 323 of IPC whereas, the accused/appellants Gulab Gupta and, Ram Soorat have been convicted under Section 323 of IPC sentencing them to undergo R.l. for six months and pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional R.l. for one month. A‘ \‘S 5. Contention of leamed counsel for the appellants is that even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, the offence under Section 323 of IPC is not made out. He further submits that taking advantage of his caste, the complainant had falsely implicated the accused/appellants. 6. Lastly, it has been argued that the jail sentence is not necessaty under Section 323 of IPC and therefore, by imposing the fine amount, the appellants be acquitted. 7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, it has been argued by Shri Neeraj Mehta, leamed Panel Lawyer for the State that the conviction of the accusedlappellants is strictly in accordance with law. 8. Ramruch (PW—2), the victim in his Court’s statement has stated'that on the date of incident when he was working in his field along with his wife Gendi Bai (PW-3) and Ronha Ram (PW-4), the accused persons reached there and assauited him_ He has futther stated that he was also abused by the accused persons and they dragged him to their house. The victim has been supported by Gendi Bai (PW-3) and Brij Mohan (PW—1). Ronha Ram (PW-4) is the witness of spot map Ex.P-2 and the seizure Ex.P—3 and the witness of arrest memo Ex.P-4 Hardeep Singh (PW-5) A.S.l, the investigating Officer has supported the prosecution case. Dr. Preetam Ram (PW.6) who had medically examined the victim Ramruch (PW-2) had given his report Ex.P-5/A. He found one scratch mark on the right eibow of the victim. 9. The minute examination of the evidence makes it clear that F.l.R. Ex.P-1 was lodged by complainant Brij Mohan (PW-1) alleging in it that on 06.08.1992 his daughter-in-law Gendi Bai (PW-3) had informed him that there was some quarrel between her husband Ramruch (PW-2), Shiv Prasad and Gulab and after beating her husband, the acousedpersons have taken him along with them. Therefore, their conviction is in accordance with law and the same is maintained. 10.. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. So far as the sentence part is concerned, keeping in view the fact that the appellants are on bail, the incident had taken place almost 18 years back, under the law the imposition of jail sentence is not mandatory under Section 323 of IPC, the tine amount imposed by the Court below is‘enhanced to Rs.1 ,OOOI- (Rs.500/- each) from that of Rs.500/- each. This additional amount of Rs.1,0001- shall be deposited by the appellants before the trial Court within 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the appellants shall undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. 11. Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, leamed counsel for the appellants shall be under the obligation to send a' copy of this order to the appellants on their correct address by registered post within 3 weeks. 12. Registry is also directed to send the copy of this order to the appellants. XE ‘\ Sd/n Pritinker Diwaker Judge kl