( 1 ) HEARD Shri C. R. Deshpande, learned Advocate for the appellants, and Smt. B. R. Khekale, learned APP for the Respondent. Perused the record.

( 2 ) THE appellants herein, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30. 12. 1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Dhule, in Session Case No. 94 of 1993, thereby they were convicted for the offences under Sections 325, 436, 337, 147. 148 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal code, have preferred this appeal, challenging the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed.

( 3 ) THE incident, which gave rise to the prosecution and the subsequent appeal after the order of conviction and sentence, took place on 19. 5. 1993, in the morning at residential huts in Gavthan survey number of village Pimpripada, a hamlet of village wakwad in Shirpur Taluka of Dhule District. The main grievance of the appellants Was that, because of the hutments of the victims, interest of the appellants, Who are inter-se related, was affected, as they were cultivating that piece of land, where the Victims had their huts. Therefore, in an incident that took place in the morning, when the victims refused to remove their huts from that land, the appellants, having gathered there and also formed unlawful assembly with the common object of causing hurt to the inmates of the huts, so also to destroy the huts, had assaulted some of the victims, including complainant Gopal Dalsha, and one Fattu, with sticks, axe, slings, causing grievous injuries to them and also set on fire complainants hut during the course of same transaction and also robbed complainant of cash amount of Rs. 5,000/ -. After the complaint was lodged, offence was registered and on completion of investigation, the appellants came to be charge-sheeted and in due course of time, case was committed to the Court of Session, Dhule. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

( 4 ) THE prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses, including the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge, by his judgment and order, as stated above, convicted the appellants for the offences punishable 436, 325 read with section 149 of Indian Penal code, so also under Section 147, while accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were convicted in addition, under Section 148 of Indian Penal code. All the appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years, on each count under Sections 325, 436 read with Section 149, for one month and fine of rs. 500/-, in default, to under go rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 147, while no separate sentence was imposed for offence under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code. By the same order, learned Sessions Judge acquitted appellants Wanya Surmal Pawara and Laxman @ Laxya Dulba Pawara (original accuse Nos 2 and 3 respectively) for offence under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code.

( 5 ) AFTER the appeal was admitted by order dated 16. 1. 1995, appellant No. 6 Bhonga surmal Pawara was reported to be dead and, therefore, by order dated 2. 7. 1998, appeal came to be abated, so far as it relates to appellant No. 6.

( 6 ) WHEN the appeal came up for hearing on 24. 9. 2004, on behalf of appellants, criminal application No. 1945 of 2004 came to be filed for seeking permission of the court to compound the offence, since the parties had arrived at terms and settled the matter amicable. Along with this application, parties had also filed compromise purshis, cognizance of which is also taken by the court in its order dated 10. 9. 2004. The court observed that the parties have arrived at a compromise as the offence under Section 325 of IPC is compoundable with permission of the court and that the terms of compromise were got verified from the office. The court further observed that since the appellants are convicted for offence under Section 434 IPC, the matter be placed for final hearing.

( 7 ) IT is not disputed that the terms of compromise have been Verified by the office

Click Here to Read the rest of this document