M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal Apgeal No.706 of 2006 APPELLANT: Heera Singh, S/o Shri Dukhawa Gond; (In Jail) aged about 40 years, R/o V§I!age Mahidabra, P.S. Kukdur, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.). Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) {Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: None for the appeliant. ,* , § RESPONDENT: r Mr: Amiyakapt Tiwari, Advocate, appears as amicus curiae. Mr. Sushi! Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the Stateirespondent. singie Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Shanng J ORAL JUDGMENT (27-1 -2009) 1. The appellant has been produced before the Court in custody. 2. When the matter is called, none present for the appellant. No representation is made. 3. Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate appears and submits that he may be permitted to argue on behalf of the appellant. He is appointed as amicus cunae. “ 4. l have heard the appeal for final hearing. 5. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 27-4-2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Kabirdham in Sessions Trial No.48/2005, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section 325 of the l.P.C., sentenced him to undergo R.l. for two years & pay a fine of Rs.5OD/—, in default of payment of tine to further undergo R.l. for three months. '{'”,$( . Learned amicus curiae submits that after perusal of the statements of the witnesses he is not disputing the conviction of the appeHant, but he wants to argue on the question of sentence. 7. According to the case of the prosecution, the appeiiant assaulted Budhari on 13-9-2005 and caused grievous & simple injuries. Budhari was examined by medical expert and he has lodged the F.l.R. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and finally the appellant has been convicted & sentence in the aforesaid manner. 8. i have heard iearned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned as also the record of the trial Court. 9. tatement of injured Budhari IPW-1) is corroborated by Saoni Bai (PW- 8l,‘Upasi (PW-9) & other witnesses and also supported by medical evidence. Conviction of the appellant under section 325 of the l.P.C. is sustainable. $ 10. As regards the‘squestion of sentence, the appellant was in custody from 14-9—2005 to 12-12—2006 about 15 months and he has been sentenced to undergo R.i. for two years & tine of Rs.500/— which he has already deposited. 11. Learned amicus curiae further submits that taking into consideration the genesis of the offence which is trifle in nature and that the dispute took place only on the ground of noise as a result of cutting of tree, the period already undergone by the appellant is sumcient for convicting him under Section 325 of the l.P.C. 12. The incident took place only on the ground of noise as a result of cutting of tree. 13. The appeal is partly aiiowed. Conviction of the appeliant under Section 325 of the l.P.C. is maintained. However, instead of R.l. for two years & fine of Rs.500/—, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him & pay tine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for three months. 14. The accused/appellant has been produced from custody. He be set at 77/” ‘\ liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. S \ is? ( 15. Before parting with the case, l record my appreciation to the valuable A» ere; KW assistance rendered by Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate //////ri i V sax- .x; i r’ ludge Soma f?