Ife 1II !GL) i<8 \^ o hcj o^ ^' 1g /—•' ^ fclj 8e l^ ^ ^.:- %iu ^ D- (D $• ^ .. d- ri) o Hi ^ ^ ^J h^ a> (D B- B< (T)^^ 1 H a'- p. j^ ^D ^r' i^3^ n- 01 \ ^p' ^ p". v iS' PO a ^ ^ ^s o ^^ ' jS a? B €s *a).^< (T ft" ^ Q^ P' 0) t3 CQ po ^ ^. fD O Sl-6 •lft ^ 3 'U ^ft ^' HB . < ^ o^ ^ 2rts H-< 0) P- f^ h^ P- ^. M.i p. c^- ojn ^ ft* (D 0) D3 (^jtQ P^ W fD 03 3 Cb •ct ^ 03 0) ^ fi-' «ft" ^ og 1^ ^ ^i ^ ^o "•I ft ^ > m 2=fl o: <ft;II -^' ,/:':c^ /''/ /;' h* t:- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTXStSARH AT BXLASPUR (Hon. Mr, Justice Pritinker Dlwaker) CriminaS Appeai No. 505 of 1995 APPEUANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Mldiyam Medha State of Madhya Pradesh Shri R. K. Jain,. counsel for the appeilant. Shri Vaibhav GoverdhaFi, P.L. forthe State. CRIMINAL:.APPiAL.UNDERSECTXON_374Lf2J_OFJ'H£ CODE OF CRININAL. PROCEDyRE. IM^-SJiEJU (10.03.2011) • . This appeaS is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.03.1995 passed by Fjrst Additjonal Sesstons Judge.. Jagdalpur, Bastar sn Sessions Triat No. 379 of 1990 convictlng the accused/appeSiant under Section 304 part II of IPC and sentendng hlm to undergo rigorous jmprisonment for ten years. 2 Brief facts of the case are that on 05.05.1990 at 8.30 a.m.y FIR Ex. P-7 was iodged by the deceaseti Madkam Nande aSieging ln lt that on that day at about 1 a.m. when she was sleeping, someone caused snjury on her stomach by arrow and she saw the accused/appejlant running towards forest carrying bow In his hand. Based cn this FIR, offence under Section 307 of IPC was registered against the accused./appejlant. After 12 days of the mcident, on 17.05.1990, the deceased succumbed to her in]ur/ in the hospitaS and after compietlon of investigatlon Chalian was filed against the appetiant on 13.07.1990 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. :;^-^>, /<,x k 't—^i-:^; ^ • '-^^^;'- ^ ^ ^f'./ "^^ssS^ -a/- <.. 3. So as to hoid the accused/appeliant guiJty, prosecution has examsned 11 witnesses in support of Its case. Statement of the accused/appeJlant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of CrimjnaJ Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded hls innocence and faise impljcation in thecase. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the accused/appeltant of the offence under Section 302 of IPC but convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Sectlon 304 part II of IPC. 5. Meard counsel fbr the parties and perused the materiai avaiiable on record incSuding thejudgment impugned. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submlts that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it reiates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show the motive as to why the appellant caused arrow injury to the deceased,. the incident had taken place more than 20 years back; that the appellant has already remained 'sn jait for about two and a half years.. that the appeilant is a poor Adivasi and must be now aged about 59 years,. no usefu! purpose would be served in keeping him in jail among hardened criminajs and it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. The State counseS^ opposing the submlssions as made by the counseKor the appeliant.. submits that uttimately on account of the act of the accused/appellant one Sife has been jost and therefore no leniency can be shown to him. ,:s's;^te '^. ^r" -3- 8, Consjdering the totality of the case, convictjon part of the jmpugned judgment is maintained but looklng to the peculiar facts and drcumstances of the case^ in Dartjcular/ there is absolutely no evjdence on record to show the motive as to why the appellant caused arrow injury to the deceased.. that the inddent had taken p!ace more than 20 years back^ that the appeilant has already remajned in jail for about two and a half years/ that the appellant Is a poor Adivasi and must be now aged about 59 years,, Jal.l sentence imposed on him Is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years from that of 10 years as has been done by the Court beiow. As the appellant ls on ball, his bai! bonds stand cancelled and he Is directed to be sent back to jail forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sentence imposed on him. 9. Appeal thus partly succeeds, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge