- (1.) DR. Maithli Sharan, J. This is an appeal filed by two of the four accused persons who were tried by the VI Addi tional Sessions Judge, Unnao in S. T No. 297 of 1982 for the offences under Sections 324/323/307,1. P. C.
(2.) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao on appraisal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that no case under Section 307, I. P. C. was made out. He convicted accused Dhani and Narain for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34, I. P. C. He also convicted accused Parmeshwar and Barjor. Accused Parmeshwar and Barjor were below 21 years, hence they were given benefit of Section 4 of Proba tion Act and were ordered to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 2,000/- with two sureties of like amount for being of good conduct for a period of one year. However, accused Narain was convicted for the of fence under Section 324, I. P. C. and sen tenced to undergo R. I. for two years and for his conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34, I. P. C. he was sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year. Accused Dhani who was convicted under Sections 323 and 324, I. P. C. read with Section 34, I. P. C. was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year on each of these two counts. Thus, these two convicted accused persons Narain and Dhani have preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel appearing for ap pellants has submitted that he has nothing to argue on the point of conviction passed against both the appellants by the learned Sessions Judge. He has only submitted against the order of sentence of imprison ment passed against the appellants and has prayed that in place of sentence of im prisonment the appellants be sentenced to fine only. Looking to the facts and cir cumstances of the case, particularly keep ing in view the fact that for sometime both the appellants have already remained in jail custody, I find substance in the submis sion made by the learned counsel. Learned A. G. A. has also no objection on the point of sentence. Thus, this appeal is partly allowed. The order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge against both the appellants is maintained while the order of sentence of imprisonment is al tered into sentence of fine. Accused Narain is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 2,000/-for his conviction under Section 324,1. P. C. and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for his convic tion under Section 323 read with Section 34,1. P. C. , totalling to a fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. three thousand), in default he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and one year respectively on both the above counts. Accused Dhani is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 323,1. P. C. and again to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for his conviction under Section 324 read with Section 34,1. P. C, totalling to a fine of Rs. 2, (KX)/- (Rs. two thousand), in default he shall undergo rigorous im prisonment for one year for each of the counts. Fine shall be deposited within a period of two months. Interim order of this Court dated 17-8-1983 stands vacated. Order accordingly. .;