FCF0000061946 t. IM THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPBR CRIMINAL.APPEAL/SO. ^ S2-OF 1999 toSe Bench (Criminat) APPELLANTS: \-iUo°"-"""^ ^' •r""" %0.^..~ l.Bihari S/o Sakharaa Saha, aged 36 years,R/o Bhaj.nsatara, ^ police Station-Rajj.(n,Distt.Raipur (H.P 2.Budbwantin Bai W/e Bittari Sahu. aged 32 years R/o Bhainsatara, Pola.pe Station Rajiaa^Bistt.Ra.Lpur (M.P. VERSBS' RESPONDENT: State of Hadhya Pradesh CRIHINAL APPE&L UHDER SECTIOB_374( 2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.1973. ;|!!E—-S1,, I ila.tSifi'SSI&t 1 'tna»'4?AV° K<-/^ 8?^ l!»^"S HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 1999 APPELLANTS RESPONDENT VERSUS Bihari and another State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Vivek Rathore, counsel for appellants. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIIVJINALPROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (31.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.3.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 447/1997 convicting the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 100, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18.7.1997 FIR (Ex. P-10) was lodged by Kunjlal Sahu (PW-3) alleging that on 17.7.1997 at about 8 p.m. his younger brother Bihari (appellant No.1 herein) and his wife Budhwantin Bai assaulted him with axe on account of demand of the documents of certain land and club. After investigation the accused/appellants were prosecuted under Sections 323 and 294 IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 11 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. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned above. j^,<^ ^1 l3i*. % I 1 ",.-^./'^' ^ E»a 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 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. According to him, the appellant No.1 is aged about 50 years whereas appellant No.2 is a lady aged about 45 years, that the incident had taken place in the year 1997 between brothers, that the relations between the accused/appellants and the complainant have become cordial, that i'n a counter case complainant Kunjlal has also been convicted under Section 307 IPC, no useful purpose would be served in sending them to jail and it would be in the interest of justice if the jail sentence imposed on them is converted into that of fine only. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Jail sentence imposed on th^ accused/appellants is hereby converted into the sentence of fine. Each of the appellants is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500 (total fine would be Rs. 5,000). Out of this total fine amount of Rs. 5000, Rs. 4,500 shall be payable to be the complainant. If the fine amount as directed is not deposited in the trial Court within four months from today, the sentence imposed on them by the trial Court shall stand restored. 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Pritinker Diwaker Judge w