CRIMINAL APPEAL 254 of 2000 on 13 January 2000

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Codeo f Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 13.01.2000 passed by theSixth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.153/1998,whereby the accused/appellants have been convicted under Sections 324/34 and294 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year and R.I. for 3months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.11.1998, at about 09.15 PM,

Charan Singh (PW-12) was returning home with Rewaram (PW-5), Chhotelal(PW-6) and Devi Singh (PW-10). The appellants accosted him and fired with a12 bore Katta. Brajesh (PW-7) and Charan Singh (PW-12) sustained simpleinjuries on account of the firing. It is alleged that Brajesh (PW-7) Charan Singh(PW-12) and his companions were watching a cricket match over T.V. in theshop of Govind (PW-2). At that time, they were making lot of noise and wasusing abusive language, the appellant No.1 interfered and asked them to goaway. On this, the complainant party assaulted the appellant No.1 causinginjuries to him. Thereafter appellant No.2 reached the spot and he fired a singleshot in defence of appellant No.1 as a result of which Brajesh (PW-7) andCharan Singh (PW-12) sustained injuries. After due investigation, charge-sheetwas filed. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 324/34 and294 of Indian Penal Code against the appellants. During trial, learned Courtbelow found the charges proved and convicted the appellants for the aforesaidoffences.

3. T h e appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence and falseimplication. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as14 witnesses. Upon consideration of the entire evidence, learned trial Judge, forthe reasons assigned in the judgment under challenge, found the appellant guiltyfor the offences punishable under Sections 324/34 and 294 of Indian PenalCode and awarded punishment as mentioned here-in-above.

4. The appellant has preferred this appeal on several grounds and during thecourse of arguments, pressed on merits inasmuch as there are materialcontradictions and omissions in the statements of material witnesses. It isargued that the appellant No.2 has fired gunshot for self defence of appellantNo.1. The appellants have been convicted only on the basis of the testimony of Brajesh (PW-7) which cannot be sustained. None of the witnesses have statedthat the appellant No.1 was present at the time of incident. In the statements ofthe witnesses, it has been established that the complainant party was makingnoise and the appellant No.1 objected to this. No blood stained earth has beenseized from the spot. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyondreasonable doubt. The appellants remained in custody for 50 days. They havealready faced the criminal prosecution for almost 23 years. Therefore, it iscontended that this appeal may be partly allowed and the sentenced awarded tothem may be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fineamount.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed thecontentions and supported the impugned judgment placing reliance upon theevidence which have been adduced before the trial Court. He submits that afterdue appreciation of the prosecution evidence, the learned Court below hasfound the offence proved against the appellants which requires no interference.Hence, he has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through theimpugned judgment passed by the learned Court below and the statements ofthe prosecution witnesses, this Court is of the considered opinion that there isno error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment. Noillegality has been committed in the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court.The learned Trial Court found the appellants guilty of the aforesaid offence andconvicted the appellant. However, looking to the evidence available on recordand the period of custody which the appellant has already undergone, this Courtis of the opinion that the appeal may be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to them may be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancingthe fine amount.

7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellantfor the offences under Sections 324/34 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code ishereby maintained but the term of jail sentence is reduced to the period alreadyundergone by them. However, by invoking the provisions under Section 357 ofthe Cr.P.C., this Court deems is appropriate to pay compensation to thecomplainant to do complete justice in the matter. Under these circumstances,they are directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune ofRs.2,500/- each to be paid within a period of three months from today whilegiving an undertaking before the trial Court that if he fails to pay Rs.2,500/- thentrial Court would proceed against them to serve the remaining part of jailsentence.

8. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is hereby affirmed but his jailsentence is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. Theappeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence.Appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

9. A copy of the judgment along with trial court record be sent immediatelyto the court concerned for information and necessary action.

AM

(VISHAL MISHRA)JUDGE