fc<\ .^N0^-- t Nv.' SinqK Bench (Em| -o i • ^h/t \f^ft^^— .-..•• • . ' • rf^ l^*'*' "—'" . l ^l- U^'' *" / I»THE~Hi£eOURT ©FHffiHYA PB&DE^ .M? JABA&POR yt'1f J^slft ^' Grlminal Apgeal No. 1<^ of 19914 Artv\<a1 1 -anfcff; Aecuwd 1. Aajbr Das. aged 40 yearg, t/-' . ^ . . . ' •'' sc» ef Bihari Satnami; /' 2. .-Erlpai;aged 30'yeera, ••' • • ^•;~- •• " < e^;- i?^>' ^3-"..A« ^V)-v- .-gesponden ts son o£ Blfaarl Sat.nanil; ^••5«.,T)ayaiaa&(:aged27yesrs,, . . • • son.of BIbari Satnanlj >'• • . 4 < -B&.-j enars Prasad a llas ?oka 1 <<• . '"."•'••'-''•'•• .••'•.'. . . . .' • "• • .. /'"• . • .sged 25 years son .of Slb.rirt.Sa'tnaal:} \ . • . '..''•.'•'•' ." , •'. , •'. , 5. B''bar-i Bged 60 years'^'?' ' • •son of Baba Satnaail;/ • .., '^'^'^~-\.' • .;-.- / . .: ' 6.'Iialla,^gei3 18 yeara, •' ' • soi-i af .tejor Daa SatnsBi, .y - . ., : ' -. - ' \ . '/. ' ./^^-^ ~ All res'tdents'crf 7lllage-&totapaBi, ^ ^ 'V \^ loltce Station^panflarle, Dlstrlot Sliaa^ • ;^ versus • ;•. : : . :::. ' \ ^ •?("" ~\- Ihe State of Mafltiya Bradseh. : ' ' -;.:1 -•.,., /'./'':'^ oaiMRTAi A?PEAS VKSsa. •SBSEOW 574 (2) .caiamAs aoGEscaE-ceBS / ~ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS©ARH,4T BILASPUI Single Bench ; Hon'bje Mr. Justice Pritinker Diweker CrimmaE Asweol No. 100 of 1994 >r Do.sd sthers. Accused RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Shri Kamal Pandey, counsel'for the appsllants. Shri Neeraj Mehto, Pctnel l.w.vyer for the State. CRIMIN4L APPEAL UNbER _SECTION_ 374 f2) OF THE CODt Of Present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment cr,d order dcted 18.01.1994 passed by 4 Addltionaj Sessions Judge, Link Court'at Mungeli Distt. Bilaspjr in Sessions Tria! No. 55/92 convicting the accused/appe.'lfflits for the offences punishable unde" Sections 149/307 and 149/323 of the Indicm Penal Code and sentencino them to undergo rigor-ous irffprisonment for thres yecrs and six months respectively and also convicting the occused/appeilmt No. 1 for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencinQ him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for thrseyears. -2. Case of the prosecution IR brief is that on 8.11.1991 at about 8.45 ,pm F.I.R. (EX.P-SA) was lodged by Sadhram (PW-3) •^ / alleging in it that on that dayat about 6 pm he and his brother ^*»- Rdmdas have been asscqjlted by ths accused/appeilants. Victim Sddhram was medically examined by Dr. M.K. Rai (PW-2) and his repopt is Ex.P-5A and as per the said rsport-, victim .7 Sadhram has suffsred five incised wounds and four contusions ;^a.nd an.othar'.vietlm Ramdas was atso medicciliyexamined by Dr. ^ 1 ^»^"i,t /yKS- I t;---5,& i 'i-'a^B '<»» ..-«<• AA.K. Rai and his medlcat report- is Ex. P-4A cmd cs per the same victim Ramdas has suffered four injuries. After investigation, the poiice has fiied challcui under Sections 147,148, 149, 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. So as to hold to accused/appellants guilty, prosecution •» has examined as many as 11 witnssses in support of its case. Statements of th.e accused/appellants K'ere aiso recorded under Section 313of the Code of Crimina! Procedure in which they denied the charges ieyelled against them and pleaded. their innocence ond false implication in the case. under Section sentenced the 4. After hearing the parties the trid Couri' accused/appeliants No. 2 to 6 for the offencs 148 IPC but has convicted and accused/appeiiants. for. the offences as mentioned above. Hence the present appea!. 5. During pendency of the appeai, accused/appeilant No. 5 Bihari has expi d and therefore this appeal relates to remaining accused/appeltants i.e. accused/appellants No. l to 4 A6. - 6. Heard counsel for- tb.e part'ies cmd perused the material availableon record includjngthejud^ment Impugned. 7. Counsel for the appellant submits tho.t he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction psrt of the jmpugned judgmerst and wou!d confine his argument to ths ^>- . sentence part thereof on!y. According to him, appe!!ant No, 6 at the relevant time, was a young boy of 18 yso.rs cmd now aged about 37 years and th.e othe-r Qccysed/appeliants are also aged about 50 years, incident is said to have taken place about li yeGrs.bo.e.k, th.at the re!ations between complainant and the ":~~~~^^t: ••!- '.^••^SK^ ;-•«••..-" ;:--^.. 1 -/^•e*,. ^ ^ ''' "& 3 VffWtg^. 1 % s accused/persons have again become cordial, thort- on the reporf- of appellant No. 1 Anjor Das, a counter cose was also registered against the victim SQdhram for the offence under- Sections 325 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the appellants have remained in jait for about three months and twenty days, no' useful pjrpose would be served in sending them to Jai! cmd it would be iri the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 8. On the other hand, courisel for the StoEte supporting the impugned judgment submits that looking to the nature of injury, no leniency shouid be shown to the accused/appellants. 9. In view of abov®,the appeal is part-ly allowed. Convjction parl' of th-e impugned judgment is maintoined. It is not disputed that on the basis of report of appeilant No. l. counter case was registered against the compiainant Sadhram, incident had takenplace about 18 years bock, fact that appetlants are reported to have remained in jail for three months and twenty days, sentence of three years rigorous irriprisonment is reduced to that of two years in respect of offences under Section 149/307 and 148 df Indian Penai Code. Appellants are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.1000 by each of the appetlants). Out of this total fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.4,OOQ/- shall be paygjile to be the victim Sadhrom. If the fine- arnount as directed is not deposited in the trial Court- within four months from todcy, the appel'onts shail undergo furt'her simpls imprisonment of one month. 10. Appeal thus partlysucceeds. 'Sd' Pritinker Oiwaker Jadge