ift-' IN THE HIGH C0URT ©F JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. 9 4\ OF 1997 APPELLANT: Leelarag.'S/o Phool Slngh, , / "' ' ' / /" aged about 37 years.occupation Pan Shop, Resident or village-Cbbatl, / Police Station-KurTld.Tahsil-Dhanitari, D.i.stt.Raipar (K.P.,) VERSUS RESPONDENT; State of Madhya Pradesh-. CRIMIHAL APPEAL UNDER SECTIOS 374 (2) OF THE_ CODE,OjF_ CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. - it..--^i£.i->Wi.^-.fflHBntisaittG^tWffiu HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 941 of 1997. APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Leelaram son of Phul Singh State of Madhya Pradesh. •-t—.-.-'J-.l.JilJ.^.iliJ^j.lE^ Shri Vimilesh Bajpai counsel for appellant. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. J U DGIVI ENT (17.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.3.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, in Sessions Trial No. 267/1996 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 4.3.1996 FIR (Ex.P- 5) was lodged by one Rohit Kumar (PW-1) alleging that on that day when he was returning to his house after closing his betel shop, accused/appellant who was in a drunken condition met him and started abusing him. Thereafter, accused/appellant took out a knife from his shop and assautted him causing four injuries below his left ear. After investigation challan was filed for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 08 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. ^;"^-.^^^'" 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the accused/appellant of the offence under Section 307 IPC but convicted and sentenced him forthe offence under section 324 IPC. 5. Heard counsel for the pari:ies and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submitsthat he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, by now the appellant must be aged about 50 years, that the incident had taken place in the year 1996 and that too on the spur of moment and that the accused/appellant has already remained in jail for about 20 days, no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail and it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. To this, counse! for the State has no serious objection. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appealis partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Appellant is reported to have remained in jail for a period of about 20 days, and therefore his sentenceis reduced to the period already undergone byhim. 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. , Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge r^