^Bj-'-'-ii1*'' CF0000061958- ^inqle Bench (Crm?n3?1 IBi TgE HI®GOBBT CF J@BIGA,IUfig. yADH^, PBADEBH AT JABAU'UB. GEIMIW., -APPEA1. . '^'3'M CF X999 . 'm f^g. 11'-ly- l..l-—' i ^..Advocs" (*' LV APPEI.LANT/AGCBSBQ g: j..^ Pamn SiRgh, Sora af BabHran (IN JAIL) fanwar, aged about 6®years, Besideiat of Lagaajhar, Village tli'fll ., Puda, Police-StattGB Batanpar Mstriet-BILASPBH (M.P.) ' B. 2..1 Pratap Siagh, SSB of Pawara Singh, aged abo»t 32 years, BesideBt of LagBajbar, ; Viliage-^HdH, PeUee-Sta.tion BataRpBr, District-BILASPVB (H.P.) - !;i E>-f3) £Narbad Siagh, So@ of Kalafch Slngh Kaawai?, aged about 42 years, BeSldeHt ef Lagnajhar, ViUas®Pudy, Poltce-Steti @n- Hataapar, Di.strlct-BIIASPUB (M.P.) K? '^ f> £>. e. 4. B&retb alias Karam IIahty Son ef SHei.kb Bamjara.aged abeut 55 years, Besl.dea't ef , Pandiapatha.ca, Pgli.ee-Statioa Keta, Distrtcfe-BIIASPtJfi (M.P.^1 5. g.JanjB alias Farafc Ali, j SOR ®fSSstkb femjaa, a ged a^oyt 46 years,^BesieleBt of M Pairtlra-Pathra, yoillca-^tatioR Kffta, ©istnGt-BXLASPt,)fi.~^fc£^ w, 6.£ Mohd. Sattar, Soa gS UQQS jtt Mohaidaad, aged ato^Bt 2l yea^^ BesideEit'ef PaBdra-P&tl»B?^.g"' Peilise-Sfeatl.ofr: K^^a,, .Bts^yS '• . [II BILASgBB (M..P^ '^^SSWS3a '^^'•^^^y^.^^y^?^-' '):^ »:a ^'^i^&^^^^^^^:^ BES'.OBOENT * • '3 • • * • <£. 0 • 7. e.Sheikb Muajjam, Son of Sheikh Baajaa, aged about 30 yea.rs, fiesident of Paadca-Patlara, / Police-Stattora Kota, Bi.stri.et- gILASPUB (M.P.) 8. £.IbU ali.as Idrish, Son ofMobd. ; „ Hassain, aged about 25 years, 1 Besident of Pandra-Pathra, Police-! -StatS.eR K@ta, Distriet-BILASPQa | (M.P.) • • ; V g BSUS \ State of Madhya 5ra8esh, TB'BSXKm : Poli.ce-StatioB RataapHr, Qlstrict-BIIASPya (M.P.)i ^PE^L@ EIL§^5SN-^ZSi21-^-^HE-2^E- -CBiS^ PBGCEBUa£. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. hflr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 1999 APPELLANTS Pavan Singh and others. VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Ahmed Hussain counsel for appellants. Shri Vivek Sharma PL for respondent/State. Shri C.P. Lahre cpunsel forthe complainants. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (16.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.01.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sess.ions Trial No. 124/1998 convicting the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 324/149 and 326/149 IPCand sentencing each of them to undergp rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s 148 and 324/149 on each count, and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 500 u/s 326/149 IPC, plus default stipulation. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on the basis of Dehati Nalisi Ex. P-4 given by Kanwal Singh (PW-4) on 11.11.1997, FIR (Ex. P-35) was registered on the same day. It is alleged that on 11.11.1997 there was some dispute between accused/appellants and the complainant party as a result of which Maansingh (PW-1), Kanwal Singh (PW-4), Pavan Singh (PW-5), Ved Singh and Shyam Singh had suffered number of injuries on their body. It is alleged that out of these injured persons, Shyam Singh and Ved Singh had suffered more injuries but they have not been examined by the prosecutionwhereas Pavan Singh (PW-5) had suffered fracture of right forearm. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against the appellants under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 325 IPC. w^~^ -a- 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. In addition to this, one Bandhu Singh (DW-1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the accused/appellants of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 307/149 IPC but convicted and sentenced them for the offences as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that he is not pressing this appeal so far as it relates to conviction part of the judgment impugned and would confine his argument to the sentence part of the same only. He submits that the appellants and the injured persons have filed an application under Section 320 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also the compromise entered into between the parties. The said application and the compromise are duly supported by affidavit of the parties. Counsel for the appellants submits that appellants and the victims are relatives and a very trivial dispute between them had cropped up on account of harvesting of crop. According to him, appellants No. 1 and 4 (Pavan Singh and Bareth alias Karam llahi, respectively) have expired during the pendency of appealand the remaining appellants are aged about 40 to 50 years and have already remained in jail for about two and a half mohths and therefore , no useful purpose would be served in sending them to jail and it would be in the interest of justice if their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, he submits that the se.ntence of fine may be enhanced sp that the victims are compensated. Even on merits, he submits that main injured persons namely Ved Singh and Shyam Singh have not •been examined by the prosecution and therefore, a lenient view may be taken against the accused/appellants. '.^!^ ^§i5ss3 -3- 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State submits that apart from two main injured persons namely Ved Singh and Shyam Singh, one Pavan Singh (PW-5) has also suffered fracture on his right forearm, and that battle axe, dagger {Gupti) and club have been used by the siccused/appellants in assaulting the injured persons. He submits that the said weapons have been seized on the memorandum pf accused/appellants themselves and that as the incident has been supported by two eyewitnesses, no leniency can be shown to them. He submits that even if two injured persons have not been examined by the .prosecution, it will not make any difference in the case of the prosecution because injuries sustained by the injured persons have been duly supported by Dr. N.K. Smadariya (PW-10). He submits that as the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable in nature, application under Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C. is liable to be rejected. , 8. True it is that the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable in nature and therefore the application filed under ^ Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C. is liable to be rejected and it is rejected as such. However, looking to the fact that theincident had taken place about 13 years ago, that the accused/appellants have already undergone about two and a half months ofjail sentence and that the injured persons and the accused/appellants are relatives, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it would be in the interest of justice if the jail sentence imposed on the accused/appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them subject to enhancement of sentence of fine. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Jail sentence imposed on accused/appellants is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence pf fine imposed by the Court below is enhanced to Rs. 5,000 in addition to that of Rs. 500 imposed by the tria[ Court, to be paid by each .of the accused/appellants. Out of this amount of Rs. 5,500, Rs. 4,500 would be payable to each of the injured persons within a period of three months from today. Failure in so doing shall result in ^v"!^i~vl<!t "'iBSyfe ! 1 . "'*"SSB ' i i. l. 'V 1 '<->.. Ik,^^ £ ''%,;i./'-- .^ ''^^ss^^"" -^- restoration of the entire sentence imposed by the trial Court by the judgment impugned. 10. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Sd'- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^