‘ ~' . ......... . ..... cFoo §\V " 1 3 1 - ._._. Y/: I ‘mx HIGH OURT‘OE MADHYA yRmE 3H AWI'JIBALPU CRIMINAL APPEAL .No.‘//J/ GE I98. _ ‘ ' I/ > ‘/‘ ' - _,; APPELLAM‘ g- Laxman son of B.h01.a Bhartiyaaged'GS ye ants re sidenpoj Asancleeh policé‘ Staticn’hamkd istrct’ Saruj a (M. Pi ). Di g VERSU$ 3tate 0£ M."P. through polce $tat on‘; R ankpl a , E) istr ict S argu. a $P0DmN :—r RE1QT // I f” PPEAL UNDER SECTIOKQ 374g2! OE THE C®E O cammAL pRO'CEDURE. , .. ....... , .......... m C R.‘ 9 / , la' i i j ,;> A F I XI-HC-22 mm WW 15-02—2006 Sm‘r. Hamrida SiddiqUe, learn d Counsel for The appeilhnf. Shri Ashiéh Shukla, learned 6.A/Acldl. Public Pr'o'secu'ror' for S'l’a‘re. This Criminal Appeal is pendi g since ihe year—1989‘ The appellan'r Was convi Ted vide judgmen‘r dafed 08-11-1989‘passed in Sessions, Case Na.54/88 by‘ Shri‘ S.R.Dol‘lre, Addi‘rional Sessions J dge; Baikun‘l'hpur, Disiricf- ,Sar'guja under sec’rion-324 of PC and' was sen'l’enced fro of Rs 250/- In defaul‘l‘ of paymenf of fine To undergo addi‘ho al R I for 3 mon‘rhs . , L This appeal is pending sinc 1989 Record of SesSions Trial No 54/88 was requismoned ‘r ‘hll now only fha‘r par‘f of _ The record which confams only v file—B has been received Despife repeafed reminders file- ‘, has no? been received so far. * Sm'l'. Hamida Siddiqui, learn d counsel for ’Thefappellanf subrnifs frha‘r. she does-nof pr M.Cr.P.. No.332/2006 for suspension of sentence and gr nT of bail. Accordingly, M Cr P No 332/2006 is dismissed s no‘r pressed She furfher submi‘rs fhaf she does nof press ’r Is appeal on merrl’s and would argue only on The queshon of se nce Hence This appeal may l u ‘ e‘ n o XI‘HC—22 be disposed of only on fhe question of sentence. This prmkr‘ is nof opposed by fhe ledm’ed Sov‘r; Advoca're. The appe’a'lviis heard finally only on fhe queé‘rion of sam‘enca. Brief foc‘rs of Thé coseore jihai' fhere was previous enmi‘l’y béTween oomplainan‘r Komfro Pmsad ond’fhe appellqm- 5.00 P M in village’Asandih Kama Pmsod whilé s‘i'i‘ollihg in on‘r of his house casually asked Ramkhelawan and Jonsai a To from where They were coming They Told him iha‘lj'ihey ha gone To The house pf Shyam Mohan for delivering bomb-obs accused. On 5.3.85 af‘oBoLI » fhis, complainanf Kamfa Prasad hurled abuseslon Them sayin whey fhey did no? give bamboos To him’ On hearing This dis ussion, The; accused—appellant also ' came There. On being a ked by Kamfa Prosad' To idenTify himself, The appellanT Took ouT a ‘Ba/ua’(a sharp weapon) and assauiTed KamTaPrasad on head, shoulder and spinal cord. . AfTer‘invesTigaTion, osecuTion under SecTion 307 of The I.P.C. was launched. e accused/appellanT was charged under Sec‘hon 307 I P C SI ce The prosecuTion did noT lead any documenTary or oTher rel le ewdence To show ThaT KamTa Prasad had susTained gri vous injury and. in J/iew of, The TesTimony of Dr. K.K. Sen P . 13 ThaT Theinjuries susTained by . [J’ r n e :r h i b . XI—HC-22 33a W, gm,W mgr m Cw; A ‘ r\‘$i ha y§ ‘ . ....................................m 200 ................................... & ................................................ mam mam—m mmmw WW%WW WEE égafanm ’3k Kam'm Pmsad were simple injuries, he Trial Cour‘f convic‘fed The appellan‘r under Secfion 324 I.P.C. and sen‘renced him as aforesaid. Learned counsel for fhe appe ian‘i submi‘i’s fhu‘rrin para—13 and 17 of The impugnedr‘judgmenf, ‘r e Tes‘rimony of Dn. K;K.5en PW-13 has been refer-red f0, whi fhe EXP-7 fhe injuries sus‘i‘ained 'by Kamfa Prasad were simple injuries. :The prosecu‘rion had no flied any X-ray repor‘l’ To prove fhaT Kam'l'a Praéad had sus‘ra ned grievous injury. I“? was aisa poinTed ou‘l' ‘rhai in para 17 o The‘judgmeni‘, jih'e learned Trial fha‘r he Judge has cieariy opined subsequen‘i’ opiniongiven by Dr. K.K. Sen on. 17.5.1985 regard ngi grievous injury Susiained by Kamfa Prasad was wholly unreli ble since X4ray repor'l' was no? filed _by The prosecuTion an The incidenT was daTed '17’3‘1985. Para 18 of The judgm nT was also poinTed ouT To show ThaT no evidence was led Tha KamTa Prasad was admiTTed in The hospiTal for a period of 0 days or more. Learned _ counsel furTher submiTTed ThaT Th appellanT is now aged abouT l l 55 years and has already suffere incarceraTion forabouT 28 V i days w.e.f. O8-03-1985-To 05-04— 985 and now is in jail since ’05-12~2005 Till daTe: On These gro nds, learned counsel for The XI—C-22 H WWW, WE, W g3? W W Cr £ No HBIHQ§§ W gnaw m‘mw ’ ‘ mww&w.m‘ $ Wan o12é$r 7 *q w ‘ appellam' prays Tha‘r lemency eewlH be shown ‘l'o The appelian‘r while awarding senTence On The oTher hand( learned counsel uppearinffor The ESTafe comends; ThaT if The subsfanfivé senfenhé of imprisonmenf is conéf‘idered To be reduced Then odequaTe compensoTion should be awarded To KamTa Prasad‘ foo The ‘ injuries $usfained by'KamTa Pmsad. I have consider-e6 The rival éubmissions.’ I have ,also perused The JudgmenT 'of Sessions Trial No. 54/88 daTed 08-11—1989. Having considered The facT ThaT KamTa Prasad had aT The appellahT is aged 55 period over'Three monThs and The pendency of This appeal s ce 1989 in my conSIderedr opinion The ends of JusTice would be served if The sen'rence awarded by The Trial CourT be m dified and The appellanT is senTenced To RI for 1 year and T pay a fine of Rs 10 000/— ouT of which Rs 9500/— shall b paid To KamTa Prasad as compensaTion In The resulT The appeal is p rTly alloWed The conVicTion of The appellan/T under .SecTion susTained simple injuries, The facj ' years and has been in jail fbr‘a f 4 of IPC is mainTained- . However, The same-rice awarded by The Trial CourT is seT~uside ' and The‘appellanT is senTenced To un “ergo RI. for llyear and To. V‘Mvn/ ; h l 0 ’2 - . XI-HC-22 W,WI€;W 311w W Q? A NO \‘k\km? h Tumun¢ ammmihr‘sta‘im %Wm§¥1 payrfine ofrlRs.10,000/- and in defauh of ’paymenf affine. f0 undergo ._ uddi‘l'ionul _ RI. ‘ for . . 8 moln'rhs. Ouf of 11%3 ‘, 42, fine amount a éum-of'Rs. 9.,500/- shaH be paid To Karh‘l'a PMsad S/o Lokna‘fh{ Residen‘r off' Viilage-Adsandih, P S.Ramkola,’ Dis‘fric‘rLSargujq as compen$afion. VDlhp Raosaheb Deshmukh‘ Judge Sd/- I i \ ‘k ‘ : .7,\\7 ' E