^. ¥^^ ysiiii^iWisi^^isQ li^ .,I^^;:.^,/^'t^%^^'^^::'' .^.^^^'''%^fe^*:^ '~'^: '•":^ •'-' \. ;1N SHB;' HIQH :CGUBT Gil;:,W®HX&,':PBNaBSH.,$,::te^JmAE>UR .CRimN^ M)%M<.Ho. - ^:^:^:0?.19:95«''^ • APPEaiiXm1 "XCCUSSD Cla Jail) "^ .jagat^al^'-''so'B;.pf-'teB8U:;'SlBg^ ;aged'..abG^t:-';2''Q'^^^a3^;^.;:''res^^ of. I^^i^^-.:Poli^e< S^^ Disfet. /@A^ftKB,( ),.-,'., '•\;'.^^ 3^^t^.3f%^, ^y:^"~^^f ^3^. Y^ ~1ZERSUS- ^^01®E C.s . . StateYof Kadhya pEadesla,. tferough . the :Stat£on:Hcxise O'fficer^' • "• Polxee Staticn' - Jaslipur^.^gar^. Distt. .RMGftJSH ^ (W).,'''1 ..:'-:". CRIMIN^ ^PPE&^:, IMD@t;,SECT3X)N 374, (2> G3?_,THE ; CGE®. v • GP CRI I%LEPRGCEDUKE;'..' ^ .^ RS COUiiT OF AT (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Djwaker) Crimlnal Appeal No. 592 of 1995 VESSUS Jagatpa! State of Madhya Pradesh. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, counsel for a.ppeliant. Shri VIvek SharsTia, PL for the. State. 374.(23 0F 1 _T The present appeal arlses out of the judgment and order dsted'-30.03.1995 by AddItionaJ Sesslons Judge^ Jashpurnagar; in Sesslons Trial No. 190/94 convlctjng the accused/appeljant for the offence.under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentendng him to undergo rigorous jrnprisonment for fjve years. 2. Brief facts of the are that on 02.03.1993 the accused/appeJSant Jagatpai a!ong wifch other co-accused persons entered the house of the deceased Hemit to commlt theft and when the ralsed alarm looklng to the accused persons, the accused/appellant assaulted her by Guptl as a result of which s'ne di'ed. Based on merg Intimation Ex. F-12 03.03.1993 gjven-by Chamra (F^V-1); FIR. Ex.P-l registered cn 03.03.1993^ itself under Section 460 of IPC agalnst unknown persons. After investlgation the challan ^as flled on 29.05,1993 against four accused persons namely Jagatpal (the appeliQnt), Gooal Singh, Jahinder Sai and Gajlnder Sai under 460 and 302 of IPC. As the accused Ga]inder Sai. absconding, the triaS procesded wltli ~--f ^^ the case. agajnst the remaining three accused persons by framlng charges against the.mi under Sectlon 302/34 of IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examlned 10 wltnesses m support of jfcs Statements of the accused persons were aiso reconjed under section 313 of the Code of Crimjnal Procedure in whlch they the charges ieve!led agalnst'them and thslr Innocence and faEse impllcation in the case. 4. After hearing the partles the trls! Court has acqultted the co-accused Jahinder Sai, GopaE Singh and the appellant jagatpal of the under 302/34 of IPC but convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under SectlQn 304 Part-II of IPC. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material avai!able onrecord Including thsjudgment Impugned. 6, Learned counsei for the appeilant submits that she Is not presslng'this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgmsnt and wouid confine her argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to her. the incldent had taken place about 18 years back, the appeiiant has already remained in jail for about one year and ten months, he Is a mlddie person of 35 years havlng family respGnslbiJlties,. no purpose would be sn sending him to jall and it would be In ths interest or jusfcice If the sentence imposed on hlm is reduced to the period aiready undergone by him. In support of her contention, counsel for the appellant has piaced strong reSiance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of ¥. of reprted in In whlcn aiso the Supreme Court has reduced the sentence of four' years to two years for the under Sectlon 304 Part-II -3- of IPC. She submits'that the appeSJant js wjiling to'pay adequate compensatlon to the family of the under Sectlon 357 of the Code of CrimlnaS Procedure. Th.is p.rayer made by the counse! for the appejla.nt is seriously opposed by the counsel for the State, L. 7. Accordingly,. the appeal is parfciy allowed. Convlctlon part of the jmpugned jucigment is maintasned. However, Sooking to the facts and clrcumstances of the case, In partlcular, that the incld.ent had taken about 1.8 years back.. the appellant has aiready remained-ln jall for about one year and ten months, that he is a person of 38 years having family responsibilities; the Jail sentence imposed on the accused/appelSant is reduced to the already undergone by him. l-Sowever,. Sn lieu thereof, the appellant. js directed to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 vvhich would be payable to the famsly of the deceased within a period of six.months from the of recelpt of copy of this order. Ir the fine amount as directed Is not deposlted in the trlal Court vvith.in. the stipulated period, the appe'ilant shaii undergo rigorous impnsonment for further perlod of two years. 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge