CRIMINAL APPEAL 673 of 2000 on 19 February 2000

ORDER

By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order ofsentence passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Session TrialNo.85/1997 on 19.2.2000 whereby the appellant-Ramkalesh was convictedunder Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced for one year RI with fine ofRs.500/- in default to further undergo one month RI.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that theprosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,the appellant did not remain in custody for a single day. He prayed for acquittal of the appellant.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Statesupported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved theincident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellant underSection 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that on 17.7.1988, Crime No.40/1988 was registered at P.S.Sinhpur District-Satna against the appellant and one Ramkaran under Section324/34 of the IPC and after investigation the charge-sheet was filed. Theprosecution has examined eight witnesses in support of the case, however, thedefense has examined Dr. G.C. Chaturvedi as defense witness. The learnedSessions Judge by judgment dated 29.2.2000 acquitted co-accused Ramkaranand convicted the present appellant under Section 324 of the IPC andsentenced as stated herein above. The P.W.2 -Rajlalan PW.3-Daddan Prasadnarrated the incident, P.W.5- Gulab and P.W.6- Ramgopal supported the caseof prosecution, P.W.1- Dr. Narendra Kumar Sharma explained the injuries.The conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the IPC is based on dueappreciation of evidence, no interference is required in the findings of theSessions Court. The conviction is upheld.

5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year1988, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents, nominimum sentence has been prescribed under Section 324 of Indian PenalCode, I deem it proper to set aside the jail sentence of the appellant,accordingly, the jail sentence is set aside. However, fine is enhanced fromRs.500/- to Rs.5000/-. The appellant shall deposit the enhanced amount within aperiod of two months from today. The appellant is on bail, his personal bond and bail bond be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. 6.. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of thejudgment.

P/-

(VINAY SARAF)V. JUDGE