© ‘f IMO hm LN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR !C.G.! QRIMINAL APPEAL N0. Q83 /200_4 APPELLANT: Umashank€ @ Babloo, S/o Shri Subxé/lnam'yam, aged about 29’33ear R/o Clmabliatu, Thana Garrjj K District Raiptif (C.G.) 3 6 Y VERSUS £ K 1 State of Chha/ttisgarh , Thomgh P.s.—,Ga6 District Ram, (Cé) CODE MEMO OF OF CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER PROCED SECTION 3R§2l OF THE LUDGEMENT AND CONVICTI URE 1973 AGAINST THE ON DATED‘”03.06.20% CONVICTION XI—Hc.22 V ‘ ; I , I / C? é ‘5839“. \ i I . \23 03 2006 .. , . I Appellant Umashanker @ "Babloc by Shf-i ’Shyém M.’ Tekéhgndqnl, Advocate. I ’ L'5hr'i'Ashish75huklaLG A for fhe Sm‘re f Shri Shyam M Tekchandam Iearned counsel for The _ appellant does no? press MlrPLNd.19éb/ZOO5 fcr suspension of sentence and granf of ball 966/05) ls d/ismlssed asml‘ pressed. I A No 51/2006 for li ling 'lha Ease oul ’ of' lurn lsv also’ ,Applmaflon (M.Cr.__P.No; dlsposed smce The maller- is ing heard loduyr. I A Ne 50/2006 for p rmlsslon fa compound l'he offence Is : curmdered ‘roday K ‘ ' " l Argumenls are heard Themppellanf was con lcted m Sesslens Case No 315/2003 lby the learned 9*h Addmom Sesstans Judge (F TC) Ralpur Vlde Judgment dc‘l‘ed 3rd June 2 4 under secfmns 307 324 1P C and Seghon 25 (i) (b-b) of Arms cl and was sen‘rencedfo undergo RI. :for'seven yea‘rs' and n fine of Rs.500/-, in ‘defuul? fq, undergo . Addil'lénal R I forvsix monfh under Seefldn 307 I.F.C. To undergc‘ _'R I for ane year and a fm of Rs 200/- In defaull lo undergo addmonol RI for 1'hree mo Th5 under Sechon 324 IPC and 1'0 undergo R.I. for one fyear a d o fme of Rs.290/-, m defoulfl fo/V/ f mmmm‘d ' undergo addifional Rlfor' Th! . of The Arms Act; The senfem Since the comphinant presenf in courf foday, he Tekchandani, gounse! for fhe idenfificafion mark menfionea of sTab wound’aT-righf side 01" chesT Iower partThe idenTiTy of The T > persoq presehT in CourT is eslmblished as The person ihjured. The éomplainanf submifs Thaf s befween ‘rhem, he has, of his; with The accused To ensure fuTLire. ’ ‘ . 5hri Ashish VShukTa, 6. offence'under' SecTion 307 IJ under SecTion 307 I.P.‘C.Uis inoT compoundobTe, LA. No.50/2006 for permission To compound The r offence is dismissed. » u appelianT submiTs ThaT he do s noT wish To press This appeal sofar ' ‘ T as The cpnvicTion of The app i nee There was no (previous enmiTy own voliTion e’nTered inTo compromise good relaTionship beTween Them in ‘ \ A. opppses/‘The applicaTion’since The "C. isnoT compoundable’. Since The Toffence ‘ee'monThs under SecTion 25 (1) (la-b) _ :es were ordered To run concurrently: BaHa Yadav, sQn of Ramlal Yadav ‘is is‘ .idenTified by. ‘5hri Shyam ‘M; {appellant Upon VerificaTion. by The in’The injury reporT as also The mark handani,’ learned, counsel for The 5hri ‘Shydm M. Tek lanT under SecTion 324 I.P.C. and 254 (1) (b-b) of_Arms ACT-is co earned and would argue only on The que‘sTionvof senTenoe dworde : ldi§w under SecTion 307 I.P;C. He furTher XI-HC-ZZ mass prays th¢f The argumenfs may heard foduy and This appeal may ba disposed of fina!ly.. The ard todqy on The questmn cf ¥ e r ls no? oppo$ad c \ The upped is' finally ~ Senfence Learned counsel for f e appellant submlfled fhaf the appellant Umoshanker' @ 'Bcb was a young lad 9f .19 yearspld on d ’ndf have any previous \criminal ,fhe da‘re of occurrence. \Hz ’ record or any previous enmi‘r fh Balla Yadav P.W.4, the injured. The imident in which Balla Yad was sfa’bbed‘by the appellant by a ‘ knife on fhe Vr'igh’f side-’of ches ai' The lower‘ par? was an aff—shoaf‘ l af a sudden, quarrel and was 1' us no? prem'edi'iafed. He furi'her g v submits Jihahonly a single blow as, caused byihe ap‘pellam: Lasi'ly plaéing reliance on a decisia rendered by fhe Apex 'Couri" ink , - s gadmla/ V Sfafe of MP rep‘r‘red m (2005) 7 Supreme Courf‘ ; Cases 55 learned counsel for appellanf submii's that in View of fhe compromise be‘iween fhe p rfies ‘rhe senfence awarded by The h Trial Judge under Sechon 30? P C should be reduced 1'0 senfence * already undergone by the up ellant On 1'he other hand Shri' Ashlsh Shukla learned Govern enf Advocate opposed the prayer and argued that conSIdermg th nature of mJury sustained by Balla , Vaclav it would not be a fit c se to reduce the sentence even on the ground of a compromise ef eated between the parties.)K/2 ’ /\: /’ " Wéw pr l i i y e Wm Cw A 3am.W 00 . Wm V WW ;3:v ‘ WW%WW mfanm“ XI»HC-22 ‘ ’ If is an esi-abiished fac- at abouf 4 3O PM while Ballq _ \house of his neighbour- fh‘ ' assaul‘red him by a knife'an - paéi cmising‘an incised wound part anferior 'i'o axil’iaf'y lirie appeHani' fhereafi'er aisoassnuh'ed Laxnii Bai-by fhe knife causing ' ‘a simple incised injury an 1-h prosecution does not show hot there was‘any previous enmity between the appellant and B lla Yodav or that the assault by the > ‘ appellant by knife on Ballo Ya av was premeditated The testimony of Bella Yadav also shows fh afier' a single assauli' by a knife by ‘ the appellantend no further nJury was caused The appellant was aged abouf 19 years on The dafe of occurrence Balla Vadav P W 4 l me foday f0 asceri‘ain whefher i‘he vlil'ion or no‘i and I am‘safisfied that has forgiven the appellant for the . injury caused to him and has voluntarily entered into a compromise 1‘0 mainfaingood mini-ions. B i reictionship. f’MP (2005) 7 S.C.C. 55, the . ' appellant was convicted under by ihe prosecuhon Thai- on 8 7 2003 Yadav P W4 was playing Dice m fhe a appeiianf upon a sudden quarrel he nigh? sideof chesi' af ihe lower 2.5 x 0.8 cm vr'igh'r side oflchesf ioimar a'r abour 9* iniercosfais space. The was thoroughly questioned by compromise was of his ownvc fhe compiainahi' -Bu!ia Vadav nlla Vadav P W4 also mentioned that fhe appeiiani‘ is jusf. like ‘ , In Badrila! V 51m? o lefi‘ leg. The evidence led‘by 1'he'. ‘3.3 H " i ?a x his brother according to Village Section 307 I.P.C. and was sentenced $ V XI—HC-22 ' To RI. for q period‘of 10 y hrs. Hawever, on The boSis of a joint _ ‘ pefifion o'f compromise 'filé‘ by fhz parties the'senfenc‘e awarded was reduced by The Apex Co r1 m 14 monfhs m +he parted dready _ undergone by the appellant n That case In the present case The appellanf Is m Jail smce 25.7 2003. Thus,.1'he appellant has already undergone senfence fer a pe iod df Two'years gnd eighf months. In 7 my eonsidered opinion in th feets and circumstances of' the case ' and in View of the dealsion f the Apex Court m Badrilal (supra) the present case Is a fit cas In which the sentence awarded under _ Section 307 IPC should be reduced ta the period already undergone by the appellant ~ In the result the app al is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 30", 324 I.P'.C. and 25 ~(1)’(b-b) of the Arms Act is maintained. l Imér sentence awarded under Section 324 7 and section r25 (1) (b-b) of the Arms Act as‘ also the'sentence of l fine’amiarded undenSection ‘30? I.P.C. are also .maintaine Q Howeveri the substantive seilitence of imprisonment‘awarded und r Section 307 I'.'P.C. is reduceo to a period already undergone by the . appellant. - - i Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge l i 2 p, ‘7 ‘ii [stew