..^% •^^ ^' CF0000063230 m^Q BenA (<»riminal) IN THB HIGH COURT OF •TUDICATURE AT JABQLPUR (M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.vN3>7/2000 Applica0i€ MasatraCT* S/o samaru^Binjwar JM'^f^-^ yAged about 56 years»y R/o Banlci No. 2. P.S. Banl&i Mogra District Korba (M.P.)» / VERSUS Respoadeat State of Madhya Pradesh Through Sfeation House Officer» Pollce Station BanM Mogra Dlstrict Korba (M.P.)« APPEAL UNDER 3EGTION 374 (2) ©t THS CODS OP / CRIMINAE, PROCEDURE y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2000. APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Masatram son ofSamaru Binjwar. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh). Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, counsel for the appellant. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for the respondenVState. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (11.01.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.1.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 300/1998 convicting the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1000 and rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs. 5000 plus default stipulations, on both counts. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.3.1998 FIR (Ex. P-12) was lodged by one Jhulbai (PW-6) alleging that her husband Tulsiram (PW-5) was assaulted by the accused/appellant with the help of axe as a result of which he sustained injuries on his head. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. p—» 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appeltant for the offence as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material availableon record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the incident had taken place in the year 1 998 and there was no intention on the part of the accused/appellant to cause injury to Tulsiram (PW-5) but as he had come all of a sudden, he got injured. He submits that by lapse of time the appellant who happens to be the uncle of the injured have come to terms and no dispute exists between them. He also submits that the appellant has already remained in jail for about one year and two months and entire fine amount has already been deposited by him and therefore interest of justice would be served if his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. To this proposition of the counsel for the appellant, State counsel has no serious objection. 8. Accordingly, keeping in view the fact that the appellant has served out about one year and two months of jail sentence, that the relations between him and the injured have again become cordial and that the incident is said to have taken place in the year 1998, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping him in detention any further and interest of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained but sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. hle be set free if not wanted in any other case. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^JO