AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.D. Rathi, J.—This appeal u/s 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") has been preferred against the judgment dated 9/1/1998 passed by Special Judge, Panna in Special Case No. 52/97, whereby appellant nos. 1 and 2 have been convicted u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") and appellant nos. 3 and 4 have been convicted u/s 324/34 of the IPC and each one of the appellants has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer S.I. for two months. According to the prosecution case, on 10.7.1996 when Parvati (P.W. 1) and her nephew, Kalicharan were returning to their home from the field, the appellants armed with weapons obstructed their way and asked as to why they had gone to visit the field. Upon her reply that she had made the forest land worth cultivating and that it belonged to her, all of them filthily abused her and Vinod gave 4-5 slaps to Kalicharan. As Parvati objected, appellant Vinod, while abusing, dealt an Axe blow and appellant Rambali gave two Axe blows on her right elbow. Appellants Chanda and Micchu beat her with Lathis and appellant Vinod also gave a Lathi blow on her buttocks. Somehow, Kalicharan brought her to her home. The appellants surrounded her home for the entire night and abused them and threatened to kill in case they lodged the report. Next day when her son-in-law Govind (PW3) arrived, report of the incident was lodged. On the same day i.e. on 11/7/1996 when they all were passing by the house of Vinod, Vinod caused injury to Kalicharan by throwing an Axe and abused them in the name of their caste. Report (Ex. P/1) of the incident, leading to registration of Crime No. 39/06, was lodged by Parvati at Police Station Brajpur and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction awarded to the appellants. However, he prayed that the custodial sentence passed against the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone and the fine amount may be suitably enhanced. According to him, the appellants have already suffered imprisonment for a period of one week.
In response, learned Government Advocate while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the conviction and sentences were well merited and the impugned judgment did not warrant interference.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, perused the record of the trial Court.
As the conviction is not under challenge, adverting to the question of sentence, it is apparent from the record that the incident took place, as early as, in the year 1996 and since then the appellants have faced the prosecution and suffered the ordeal of trial and appeal for a considerable period of more than seventeen years. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case including the period of incarceration, interests of justice would be met if the term of custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
In view of the aforesaid, impugned convictions are maintained. However, the impugned term of custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the respective appellant. However, amount of fine is enhanced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 2000/- with a direction to suffer S.I. for one month in default. Needless to say that any amount already deposited towards fine sentence awarded by the trial Court, shall be adjusted in the enhanced fine amount of Rs. 2000/-.
In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part. Appellants are on bail. In case they deposit the enhanced amount of fine before the trial Court within one month from today, their bail bonds shall stand discharged, failing which the trial Court shall take appropriate steps for executing the default stipulation as indicated above. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.