'ssf-'^:"yrs:*yf,'^w:'^^^:^3m"'^£vsv^'"^^B6^steB^'5%*^ff^iG%SS':^^-^T^;i.:^.'^;^-5^'^-?s^fcE$ffi^ :•':'.: ^-''•Vi- ^iaes s' -ci '^ CF0000057683 IR IH& HI6H GOUHC OEMAOSZAPBfiDBSa ffl; JfiB&T'BB. GB.MIHJ& APPBM- BQ . /-^3/ O? 199ll- • /^' ' ' ' • . &PPELLfiS'ES;'t^ 1. aigDEUsonofLasinaifagadatiQdt 4? yearsx/ . _ . . - _ „ /' 2. Su ''al.3-as Ea)asui!fa son of Tetku, agsd at3pat.^3'2years,~ , Bot-b residents ofTendri Tal.sb, 'Cahsl]- ald Bistri.ct Bilaspur, El.P. '•;'• wrsas HS;®MIMI ;- Itis Stat& ofM.P.tbTO^P.S. - Loriai, TAsU- epd Dist.ri.cfe BU-aspur. ^<^s's yc't;l V ' .: B?r ,!:.t! te.:' 18 -JS3 •: •^s,slia lll ti ^/,. y .•;-» ;y'y -t- /^!- ' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR .» (Hon. IVIr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1531^M 994 APPELLANTS RESPONDENT VERSUS Dhannu and another State of Madhya Pradesh 3^ Shri Afroj Khan, counsel for the appellants Shri Vivek Sharma, PL for the State Criminal Appeal No. 1583 of 1994 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Gopal State of Madhya Pradesh Styi Raj Kumar Gupta, col^i'isel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Sharma, PL forthe State« ; CnminalADDealN^.^50o1:1995 '...'' ' '. APPEL1-ANT Martnu , •VERSUS' <il> RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh :^hri M. D. Dhote, counsel forthe appetlant. ^'S^[\ Vivek Sharmq,'PL for the State: •:'t ' ' '. . .' .^'-^ ' :• . . ' " CRIMINAL ft^PEAUS UNDER SECTION 374 (2VOF THE CODE OF '• CRIMINA'l. PROCEDURE. •^'•• .•- '~~~—~~~~~~ " -\~ ~~} ~ ~ " "., , ^ • .. , ' • JUD-<5;M£'NT , ^ (10.01.2Q11) "-• <;. Since the.'aforementioned thFee appe^Ts arise of the same jiidgment.dated 29:11.1994 gassed by Additipnal Sessions Judge, Bilaspurin;$essions TrialN6,,36/1988, they are disposed of by this * • comnTOfi:jydgp ent; i .«*'''1.. ^— s] ^a- The appellants have been convicted under Section 325/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one '•; _ year and p^y fine of Rs. 500, in default-of payment of fine to further undergo simple irriprisonment for two and a half months. 2. Facts Of the case in.brief are that on 04.09.1987, FIR Ex. P-1 was lodggd by Kapil Das (PW-1) alleging in it that when he was retuming ^frqre" his field, the accused/appellants assaulted him by :!'t ^, *,°"...' '.:.••.. means pf^ty^^sfusing injuries on his head and on the other parts of • •"<r ii'^ "• Y- '•. .' ' • ;his bpdy. "Artgr my^stigation, challan was filed against fhe appellants »<..''''..'. • * I some time fn ;tM|I month of December,' 1987 for the offence under -l"'-"'' • . . v» : \ sections 307, 3^3rgad with section 34of IPC. t','1'.''1-"^.. ! ': " ! " '• >> 3. v So as to .h6)d ttie accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 11 sgjtnesses in support'of its case. Statement of the accused/appSI)gptsw6re also recorded under section 313 oftheCode I^^TY of Criminal. •PtfNecJure iB-whjch ,they denied the charges, levelled ;°: <y ?i<^ ^:1 .;,. ^.•^' ..' .•/ '.'... against therB'Sjt^ipleaded their innoCence and false implication in the case. •^ 4. After hearirig the parties the trial Court has acquitted the accused/appellants ofthe offenee und'er Section 307 IPC but convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Ruring the pendency of present appeals accused Dhannu expired and therefore, the present ^', ( '.-: • ' • '• appeals confihe only in respect of accused <Sykh @ Ramsukh, Gopal t» and Mannu. i ' .. \ • •• ; ,. . •" . '• . •• "• • .' 5. Heard courisel for the parties and perused the material available .on record includwrg the judgment impugned. \ ^ . ''.''''• ' '•''.'•. ."• 6. Counsel for the appellan8~ submit that,they are not pressing the.se appealsasfar as they relate to conviction part of the impugned judgment and wputd confine their argument to the sentence part thereof bnly. Accbrdingto them, the incident had tdken place about 23 •years back, that the somplainant and the appellants are residing in the ^- . sairSe-village and relations between them have become cordial, that the ar:raisRri/annellants have alreadv remained in iail for more than one .^ass^es^iSSSi -3- and half months, no useful purpose would be served in sending thsm to jail after lapse of 23 years and it would be in the interest ofjustice jf the sentence imposed on.thero is reduced to the period already undergone by them. It has been further argued that the financial condKiqn.of the appetlants'is pathetic and som6how they are surviving and therefore even they are not in a position to pay any fifie amount. To this, eounael forthe State has no serious objection, 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeats are partly '^lowed.. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is ,maintafn^d. Jail, sentence imposed'op the accused/appellants is redudect to the period'already undergone by them. 8. Appeattthus partly succeeds. s^ Sd' pritinkerOiwa^" Jadge / •, . t.'.? .- \' ^,