JUDGMENT

By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by 2nd Additional Session Judge, Raisen in ST No.46/2007 whereby the appellant No.1 has been convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months RI with fine of Rs. 500/- and Section 427 of IPC and sentenced to fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to further undergo 3 months RI and appellant No. 2 and 3 has been convicted under Section 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months with fine of Rs. 500/- and Section 427 of IPC and sentenced to fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to further undergo

3 months RI.

2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Manoj Jha, Advocate who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on behalf of the appellants as amicus curiae.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief are that the appellants/accused tried to under Sections 294, 307, 307/34 and 427 of IPC but after trial, they have been convicted under Section 324, 427 and 324/34 of IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from the evidence on record, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted, alternatively, he submits that in fact and circumstances of the case, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that the findings of learned trial Court does not call for any interference. Court is at liberty to consider the matter on the point of sentence.

6. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by judgment dated 17.09.2009 convicted the appellants under Sections 324, 427 and 324/34 of IPC and sentenced as stated herein above, however, the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge are based on due appreciation of evidence and do not require any interference. The judgment of conviction under Sections 324, 427 and 324/34 of IPC is upheld.

7. However, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2006 since then the appellants are facing mental agony. The appellants did not remain in custody during the investigation and trial. Appellant No. 1 was of 46 years of age, appellant No. 2 was of 38 years and appellant No. 3 was of 29 years of age at the time of incident. The prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants on record and there is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Sections 324, and 324/34 of IPC, the sentence of imprisonment up to the period of 3 years or fine or with both is prescribed under the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper, the sentence of imprisonment is set-aside while the sentence of fine amount is maintained.

8. Accordingly, the jail sentence of the appellant under Section 324 and 324/34 of IPC is set-aside while the sentence of fine amount of all the offences punishable under Sections 324, 427 and 324/34 is maintained.

9. Order of the Trial Court regarding disposal of the property is also maintained. The appellants are on bail, their personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.

10. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)

JUDGE L.R.