KANA MEENA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was charged for the offence of Sec. 307, IPC, which is said to have been committed on 12-9-79. The F I.R. was lodged by one, Gulabchand brother of the appellant. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence hearing the parties, held the appellant guilty of the offence of Sec. 307, IPC, and sentenced him to undergo 4 years' R.I with a fine of Rs. 100.00 (in default, 3 months' R.I.). Hence this appeal.

(2.) Shri Biri Singh, at the very threshold while not assailing the findings arrived at by the court below on merits, has not argued on the points urged in the memo of appeal, except that, of reducing the sentence to the term of already undergone Shri Biri Singh on behalf of the appellant submitted that it is a case where the altercation took place on a sudden provocation in between two real brothers, namely, injured-complainant and the appellant at the time when the appellant had gone to draw water from the well allegedly in the joint ownership of the parties. The cate of the appellant is that on the day of incident, the appellant went to draw water from the well but the injured informant refused him to take water, which resulted into an altercation.

(3.) Shri Biri Singh then urged that both tHe brothers (appellant & complainant) have now arrived at a compromise; that at present, their relations are cordial and affectionate to each other; and that in case the appeal is dismissed the appellant will have to undergo the impugned sentence thereby the relations between the brothers may strain. Therefore, Shri Biri Singh urged that while maintaining the conviction the impugned sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone apart from enhancing the fine amount appropriately ordering to give the same to the injured as compensation.