{"mHugglgmonougm ginuun 2 8339 mwgw My: tignmmw ZEN ’i‘HE HIGH COUR‘J.‘ i)? MADHYA PRADEbT—I A? JAB$§LPUR cmwimm \Ppgw No.7?ff og- 1995 Ishwar @\Ihaper 3/5“Chhitru@ I r” VBharta aged about 38 years. Gram i Keshloor Palice Statian—Ph§bza-pur, Distt-Bas’t-Ler (M.P.) ‘App’iisant: Versus l State of Madhya Pradesh thmugh the Pglice Statian Phczalpur. t Distt—aaster (M.p.§ / / ( ' y Re Sggnwéigais "‘ Q£K>EAL UNDER SECTION /374 (g) 01" CRIMINAL FROCEDURE CODE c Canvictig n; Séht énce_ Under Sectian 324 I.?.C. (4%” R.I.far ane yéér x / Qt. / / 96’ HIGH CGURT §E= CE‘H-§AWI$€§&R%€ A? EILA$PHR ® (Han. Mr, Justice Priténker Diwaker3 Ci'imina! Appeaé Ne. 1215 a? ”’95 I AP?E§.L&NT Eshwar an v VER$US RESPGNL‘sENT S‘tata cf Madhya Pradesh- Shri Vishnu Koghta, caunsei f0? appe§§&nt. u‘ amt. rm. r-amitha Gnai, L ?L I t if}? tfzé i r‘3km. ...L.. \ 1 CRIMINAL £¥PE§L UHEE§4$§€TEQN 3?41 {2} $F THE A .C&EE §F CRE%E§‘WM:L ?E@€;§_§EREE 3i§§§f§§§EN$ (gigawia; The present appeai arisa3 {mt a? the juagment and arder dated G4.GS.1§93 gassed by mire Additianak $ess£ens Judge, Bastar, Jegcemur in Sesame Tréai Ne. 3€i8j§3 convicting the Iaccused/appefiant fer the afferice under Section J4 QT: E?€ and sentencmg him ta underae r:gar:: §mprisenment for one ‘yean Facte Sf the caee in beef are that on G3.01.1§§3, Lachhin (PW—v2) was aem‘auitee by accuseeiappeiiant with the 1 hem 0f" knife as a result a? which he susta‘wmeG‘ injuries en the iefi: side of his neck. (3n the b‘asES 0f Dehat‘i Nalishi Ex.P-1, FER Ex‘P—SB was regisiered en £35.Q1.:§’93 far the effence i under $ection 3G? ef EPC, After Eevestigatian, Cha§§an was 2 fiied agamet the epeeiiant en 1‘7‘93.1§§3. ‘2. 'tix 3‘ $0 as to heie the actueed;aepei§ant guEity, prosecutien has examined 05 witnesees in supper: a? its caee. Statement of‘the accusediaepeiiant wee e350 reeardea under secticn 313 of the Code of Crimmai Preceeu‘re if: which he Genied the chérges EeveiEeo‘ against him and péawfed hiS innocence and faE$e Empimation in thg case. 4. ‘ After hearing ‘the oarties ’rhe tr‘a£ Ccurt has acquitted the accusedfaanei ant of the afience under 8ect n 307 Q IPC bu canvicted for the offence under seamen 324 (3f IPC grin? sentenced him ta underga rigareus imprisonment far ane year. f.” ‘T-iea d ceunsei fer me ear: e$ ci c perused the mateeai V ; i v;a iabie 0n record ieciuding the ludgment impugned. i i é i: Counsei fer the aneei‘ant submis it“ t ”we ie not pressing appeai as far as it *eiates to conVicfim part 0f the imgugned 3udgment and wouid can? ne his argument to the sentence part therecf eniy Accardinu to him the incident had taken place about 1.7 year; back that the accusediapoe iant is inow aaed aoouL {:8 years havmc rami y responsubiiities that the acmeiiant has aireadv remamed m 1aii for 79 davs no usefci Burmese wouid be served in gendina him o iaii and it weuid be in the intereet of 3ustice if *he sentence imnosed 0n him is reciuced t0 the periaa aiready unaergene by hi’n. .0 thjis: counsei fer‘the State has no serious objection. 7. In View of above, the appeai is partiy aiiowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained but Kicking to the facts Ianci circumstances of the case. in oerticuiar that the incident had taken p’ace about 17 vears back the appeiant has already remained in 1aii for 79 days and he must be now an aged person and sendino him back to the Jai wouid disturb his entire tarniiv the Jail sentence imoosed on the accusediappeiiant is reduced to the oeriod already undergone oy him Howeve., in iieu thereot the appeiiant is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,006 out of whzch 4yQDQ wouio be oayabie to theyictim within a neriod of six i ”m 0 V‘u. manths frsm taday, if the fine. amsunt as dgra‘ctgd is not beposited in the trial Caurt within the stipuiated period, the appeglant shaH under g0 impriwnment for a peqricd o? six manths, 8. Apg>eai thus partty succeeds. ‘ (