The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; mere serious injury does not justify conviction without corroborative evidence.

JUDGEMENT :

[MILIND N. JADHAV, J.]

1. Heard Mr. Chandanshiv learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms. Tidke, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Shivarkar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.

2. Present Criminal Revision Application (for short “CRA”) challenges two concurrent judgments passed by the learned Trial Court dated 13.10.2014 and the learned Appellate Court 06.08.2024. Revision Applicant is convicted under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to suffer two months rigorous imprisonment.

3. Mr. Shivarkar, learned Advocate appears for the victim. He made a plea to the Court to be impleaded in the Revision proceedings on 14.10.2024. He informs the Court that the victim and Revision Applicant have agreed to compromise and therefore they would like to file consent terms. Mr. Chandanshiv, learned Advocate for the Applicant supported the plea of Mr. Shivarkar. Both the learned Advocates have made their submissions on merits of the matter. I have also heard the learned APP Ms. Tidke on behalf of the State and perused the record.

4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the victim and Applicant (Accused) are close relatives. On 17.04.2010, victim alongwith his wife (First Informant) at about 01:00 p.m. were drawing water from the common family well for the onion crop in their field when Accused Nos.2 and 4 (family members) accosted them and obstructed them from drawing the water.

4.1. A verbal and physical quarrel ensued between parties leading to slapping of first informant i.e. wife of victim by accused Her husband i.e. victim immediately intervened when Accused Nos.1 and 3 arrived at the incident spot and Accused No.1 picked up an iron rod and gave a blow on the head of the victim. Victim suffered head injury. Accused also threatened the victim for his life.

4.2. First Information Report (for short “FIR”) was lodged by the wife of victim on the same date against 4 Accused family members. Crime No.96 of 2010 was registered. Charge-sheet was filed against 4 Accused including Applicant (Accused No.1). After a full fledged trial, Accused Nos.2 to 4 were acquitted whereas Applicant (Accused No.1) was convicted under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced.

4.3. Judgment of Trial Court dated 13.10.2014 is appended at page No.32 of the Application. Applicant filed Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2014 before Appellate Court i.e. Sessions Court, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 06.08.2024. Both the aforesaid concurrent decisions are the subject matter of challenge in the present CRA.

5. I am informed that parties are close blood relatives and have settled the dispute out of the Court amicably and have no grievance with each other.

6. Mr. Chandanshiv, learned Advocate for Applicant has informed Court that the victim – PW-5 has filed his Affidavit dated 21.11.2024 confirming that he and Applicant have amicably settled their case out of Court and he has no objection to compounding of the case since offence under Section 326 of IPC is not a compoundable offence. Both parties have agreed for settlement in the present CRA. In view of the settlement, both Advocates would submit that this Court should exercise its power under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.PC”).

7. On merits Mr. Chandanshiv, learned Advocate for Applicant would submit that if facts in the present case are scrutinised qua the evidence on record, it is discernible that at the highest this can be a case of causing simple hurt under Section 323 of IPC and not grievous hurt under Section 326 of IPC. He would submit that the offence took place at the spur of the moment due to the verbal altercation between parties relating to the drawing of well water on the particular day and it was not a premeditated act of Applicant to cause injury or harm to the victim. He would submit that though it is pros