^--> j</^^± ^"^^/^^^^-^^ ^'~ '^ <S} BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BH.ASPUR 9_, Criminal Appeal No.^..^............/2002 APPELLANT :- Om PrakashS/o Vimal Sao, aged about 22 years, ACCUSED R/o ofA.C.C.Chowk, P.S. Jamul, ^-y DistrictDurg(C.G.) ?^ ^vl ' . Oi; i^S °^ESPONDENT^r- Versus State ofChhattisgarh^through P.S. Jamul DistrictDurg CMMINAL APPEAL U/S 374 f2VOF THE CODE QF CMMmAL PROCEDURE. \- ) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISSARH AT BILASPUR Single 8@nch : Hon'ble Mr, Justice Pritinter Dlwaker CriminQJ A&peal No. 282 of 2002 APPELLANT Accused RESPONDENT Om Prakash S/o Vima! Soo Versys State of Chhattisgarh Shri Ravindra Agrawd, counsei for the appeliant. Shri Vaibhav (Soverdhan, Pane! Lawyer for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UN&ER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE OF JUD@MENT (06.08.2010) The present appeai arises out of the impugned Judgment and order dated 1.3.2002 passed by Special Judge, Durg in Specia! Case No. 138/2000 whereby convicting the accused/appeliant under Section 324 of the Indian Penai Code and sentenclng him to undergo rigorous Imprlsonment for slx months and to pay fineof Rs.1,000/-, in defauit of payment of fine to further undergo ssmpie Impr'isonment for two months. 2. Brlef facts of the case are that on 27.5.2000 F.I.R. (Ex.P-1) was lodged by Rajkumar (PW-1) alJeging in it that on that day ot aboyt 7.15 pm he and his fathsr were assaulted by the accused/appellant on account of dispute that his she-goat had entered the vegetabie shop of the appeilant and ate some vegetabies. It is aiso aileged that he was aiso abused by the name of his caste as he beiongs to Scheduled Caste community. After inyestigation, the chalian was fiied on 5.7.2000 under Sections 294, 324, 506-parl- II of the Indian Pend Code and Section 3 (l)(>e) of the Scheduied Caste and Scheduleci Tribe-s (Preyentlon of Atrocities) Act. ^ 3. So as to ho!d the accused/oppeliant guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses in supporl- of its case. Statement of the accused/appeiiant was aiso recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the Charges leveiled agdnst him and pleaded his innocence cnd false impiication in the case. Apart from this, witness nameiy Rajesh Kumor Yadav (DW-1) has aiso been examined by the defence in support of its cose. 4. Counsel for theappeiicu^t submits that on the basis of evidence as adduced by the prosecytiQn, the court below ought to have acquitted the accused/appeiiant. He submits that the judgment impugned convicting and sentencing the accused/appeiiant being based on no evidence is iiabie to be set aside. 5. On the other hond, counsel for the Stote supports the impugned judgment and submlts that impugned judgment is in accordonce with law and there is no infirmity in the same. 6. Heard counsei for the parties and perused the materiai avallable on record inciuding judgment impugned. . 7. Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal as for os it reiates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his orgument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident took place a!l of a sudden on account of trivial issue; otherwise, both appeliant and the compldnontwere having good relotion, even after the judgment they ore enjoying good rejotions, that at the reievant time the appeliant was a young boy of 22 years, that the incident is said to have taken piace in the year 2000 i.e. about 10 years back, that the oppeilorst has aiready ^ F ' • remained in jai! for about two days, no useful purpose wouid be served in sending him fo Jail and it wouid be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to theperiod already undergone by him. Hesubmits thot the fine csmount can be suitobly increosed. To this, counse! for the State has serious objection. 8. In view of obove, the oppeaj is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. As the appeliant is reported to ho.ve remained in jai! for obout two days, injuries sustdned by the compiainant were of simpie in nature, that the incident took piace on account of trivial issue, and. the foct that after the incident the rejation between the Gppeiiant and the compiGinant hove agdn become cordjd, in the peculiar facts <& circumstances of the case his sentence is reduced to the period aiready undergone by him. However, in lieu thereof, fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed by the tria! Court is enhanced to Rs. 4,000/-. This additionQ! amount of Rs.3,000/- be deposited by the appeilant within five months from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the triaf AAagistrate and in turn the tria! AAagistrate shal! give the same to the complajnant Rajkumar (PW-1). Faiiure, in depositing the amount wouid make the appeilont liabie to be inside the joil for a period of three months rigorous imprisonment. 9. Appeo! thus party allowed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge