iyswKS?!3fv::ass:ysssis^^^^^p^s!s!is^^ ii.-'"11^;:iu iil .1 ;;'''li K ili^ CF0000059096 IN_. E. :.HIGH COBET; Cst KS33SX& PRASESH AS^SSBS^ GFiralnal Appeal Bo. /199Q f" '°»;'•/'.i •'"¥ii.:lt':/'s:'':iSj|» i : :v!.S^,-^ r i.i!''flS1!BiSlkp, -ABOEI.L&HTS Aeeused {•-~^ '*'1 1 Ramdas, / agle<3 about: 28^ years ,.:••;;.';• ^..'|lj,^j 2 /Atmaram, aiged:,aboQt 2:5:'.years;' j-?,:';:;:i::!''i?i;| ^" .^'/:'' ''.^' '••:•- ^.-; ;.:-:1::.F;^:;;; Botfa sons', of' phoolsingh.'tlawat,, '-:^'^ i j,I|i^j resideats .of :Linj irgram/ 'B.S .P-ossor^y distric-t: Baigar&,,:H.P. r , Versgs ^'•'^ RESPONJ3EHT GRIMIN&I. APEEfiI>:BNEER:,SSeTI@N.-374(2:) CCP •::'IHE}^.C®EEi:.;QiJ1:J Sfate of Madbya praaesfa, tl^roygli':;i!^^l.:l;S^g .P.3. Pussor, E!istt..RaigaFla,^ M.^»,^^g|.jg CRIHINAL EROGEDHRE . 1111 Itil 13-t";ia .<-1j^S^ HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR (Hon. Mr. JustiGePritinkerDiwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 955 of 1990 APPELLANTS RESPONDENT VERSUS Ramdas and another State of Madhya Pradesh ShriSunil Sahu counsel for the appellants. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PL for respondent/State. GRIIVIINAL APPEAL UNDERSECTIQN 374 (2) OF THECODE OF CRIMINALPROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (26.04.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.9.1990 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No. 7/1990 convicting the accused/appellarits for fhe offence punishable under SeGtions 325 IPC and sentencing each of them to unde'rgo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 500 in default ofpayment of finetofurther undergo simple imprisonment for three rrionths: 2.: Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.9.1989 FIR Ex. P-13 was lodged by Panchu (PW-6) alleging that on that day at about 6 p.m. one Girdhari had informed him that the accused persons were assaulting his brother Santram (PW-5). When he went to the spot, he saw thevictim Santramlying on the ground injan unconscious position. After investigation the police registered jthe case againstfheaccused/appellantsand twootheraccused persons namely Phul Singh and Dhani Rarri underSection 307/34 IPC. i | 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution; has examinedll witnesses in support of its case. Statements of jthe accused persons were also recorded under section 313 ofthe Gode of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the eharges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implicatioh in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted all e accused persons ineluding the present appellants of the offeijice 1 —2.— /^ punishable under Section 307 IPC. However, the present appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 3251PC. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impughed. 6. Counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Manjappa v. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3586 counsel for the appellants submits that as the appellants have already remained in jail for one month and two days and that the incident had taken place 21 years back, no useful purpose would be served in sending them to jail and it would be in the interest ofjustice if thesentence imposed on them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. This prayer made by thecounsel for the appellants is seriously opposed by the counsel for the respondent/State. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Keeping in view the fact that the appellants have remained in jail for about one month and two days, that the incident had taken place almost 21 years back and the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court cited by the counsel for the appellant, jail sentence imposed on the accused/appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence offine imposed by the Court below is enhanced to Rs.10,OOQ (Rs: 5000 each) from that of Rs. 500 each. Out of this total fine amount of Rs. 10,000, Rs. 8,000 shall be payable to be the victim. Ifthe fine amount as direGted isnot deposited in the trial Court within four months from today, the appellants would be liable to stay in prisonfor three months. 8. Appealthus partly'succeeds. '—~~~~~ sdl- Judge