CF0000059499 c^ ^^ IN TH£ H1GH COUBT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUB, M.P. CBI&ttNAL APPEAL N0. %11 OF 1908. APPEAL UNDER SECTIO N374 OF CODE OF GRlAffNAL ^PBQCEiXJffi APPELLAi'.ITS ^-SF^O ,j ys....-..^ii..^.£— '"4v...S.'jf...-'rlwyMi'^-'Z— ,,„..,..............-—.—Md»ocate i. Damaa Lal^S/a Kartikram Sahy a£ed'(afeeu'^-28 years Villaee ; Kochera-P'S. Gurur Distric-t Durg, (MP). 2. Chhasan S/®Kartikram ag'ed about 21 y&al-s Vi.llage Kochera P.S. Gurur District Durg, (MP). ELA.R. RESPON13ENT :- V E R SU S The State sf Madhya Pradesh Thrsuejh S-tatisn Incharse police Statian Gurur Di.strict Durg, (MP) • ''^' -. / '-f' S-i <• ?j'tf^'Eu'?sT £P ft^'0 -•rrr<a?T'B'^Br JD'cr<T!L?KS'a?"RtB T^T'EI?d-i Sa£S SJAUl?f'KJL'-&iV£i<ri>ijyS.', d fStS^i Dan'.an Lal& Another versas •»• State tif Madhva Pradesh ''V.. Shri Pankaj AgrawaJ, CQunselforthea.ppellants, Shri,Vaibhay Gbverdhan, P. 1. fiar the'State. : APPEAL UKDSR SEiGTIC»i>3'?4(2t,OFTHa:CR.?.C. The presei'ic appeal'is'diEeeted agairisrfne judgmant 65 order dated 26.3.98 passed by the Ftatirth Addiiional Sessipns Judge, Durg in.S.T. No.; 362/'1996' con'iricting the accused/appellarLts for the ot'ferice pUKisha'oie underSections 324/34 of the IPC and senfencing them to unaergo SI for six months with fine ofRs. 500,each, indefau!t oftine to furtherundergo SI fbrone riionth, . . • 2. Case of the proseeution in brief is that 6n 10.4.95, FIR (Ex.P/:l) was lodged by complainant Prem Lal (P.W.-I) alleging that pn that day at about 7.00 a.m. buhd of his field was broken by the appellants on account;of; which some dispute arose and he was.assaulted by the accused/appellarits by i-iands and fists. It is also aileged that the accused/appellanis tried.to strangLilate him with the help ot lungi. Baseci on this FIR pffencs-under Section 307/34 of the IPG was registered againsi the aceused/'a.ppeU&nt, After investigatioj2,challanwas'fiied'on 9.5.05. , ^ -3. In.oFd^i-'.toestablish the 'gui't of the accused/a.ppellants, the 'prosecutidn ' has exanained 5 -witnesses, Statement .of the iacGused/appeIlants were also recorded under Section 313 pf th&Cr.P.C. in ;which fhey denied^'the charges' ievelled aga.inst them and pleaded • i;heir' ihnocenceandfalse'implicationinthe.Base.1' ' • : . i4.,'::Afterhearing coiiasel for tlfc paeties, .the trial Court hasiacql.titted |th& accused,/appellants of the' charge under -Section 307/3^ •of tl-ie India.n' |penal"ES3Jie but:faas>c;ohvic3tEGt-tKem un^er Seetion 324/34^f.yie.IF'(3iJand: l^enteneed'tfi.em asLmentioned g.bove. Hehce.this.appeal. ^•^ ^ . fsa fK -•r~I^"<=^= =w?"ffl3^rasSKSSB^^CTE^E^EESEaSKE^?S; ''.S.SiSSssvatSiSSSSSSSSSKSf.lS^aafKtl .\: ^ y :;^£^^:R^| 5, . Contention of.Shri Agrawal, counsel tor the appellants is that ne is not pressing this appeal so far as it reiates to conviction part of the judgment impugned arid would confine his argument'to the senfence part of the sanie only. He submits thg.t the appellants have already-remained injail about 7 days,the inoident had taken place; about 16 years back,it wiiS be too harsh to again send them baek to jail. He also submits that.even otherwise, the dispute was between t'ri$?cpu'sin brofhers and now they are having good relations and are iiyiftg happily. He however sybmits that the sentence of fine maybeenhancedsuitably. • 6, On the Qther hand, State courisel submits that four injuries;were suffered "by the comoiainant/victim and therei'ore the jail seiiterice may not be reduced. . '. •. ' :^.: ' . ; : • : : i • 7. . Considering. the.^facts and, GiFC!umStances 6f the case, the conviction .parf:o{'theimpugnedJttdgmentis'inam{aihed.Hciwe^rer looking to the fact that the ineideht had taken piace aboyC.16 years back and.-that too, between the cousin brothers, the appellants have.already reinaiiied iri jait !for about 7 days, this Court is oftheview that it'would be m th'e'intereat of justice if thejail sentence imposed on the accused/appeUa.nts is reduced to the period already undergone by them subjec+ to enhancement of seritence of fine. • ' : . . ; ^ : , ! 8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Jait sentence imposed on the aceused/'appeUants is hereby redyeed to the period already undergone by them. HoweveF, in the interest ofjustice,theainountqffine is increased to Rs. 4000 each (total of. Rs, 8000) from that of Rs. 500 eaoh. The appellants are directed. to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court wif'~un a period of.sbt months from the date of receipt ot' copy of this order failing which t^fey shall undergo rigorous imprisohment for t'vVO months. As the accused7AppeUants are on: bai}> their ,bail bonds stand discharged. 'sa/-" pritinker Diwakar Judge 1