SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

 2004 (2) Crimes 314
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
K.H.N. Kuranga, CJ.
Phool Singh & Anr.—Appellants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh—Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 314/2003
Dated on 17.11.2003

Advocates:
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellant :Shri Arun Kochar, Advocate.
For the State :Shri Ashish Shukla, Advocate.
For the Complainant :Shri Rakesh Chouhan, Advocate.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 320 — Two appellants convicted u/s 325 I.P.C. in Sessions Trial case & sentenced to 3 years imprisonment — Petition for grant of permission to compound offence — Dispute was stated to have been settled amicably & both parties were residing in same village — It would be appropriate to grant leave to compound office — Appellants acquitted in view of compromise. (Para 4 to 6)

       Result: Appeal disposed of .

       

Judgment

K.H.N. Kuranga, CJ.— This appeal is posted for orders on M.Cr.P. No. 1682/2003, filed under Section 320(2)(5) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave and permission to compound the offence and M.Cr.P. No.1683/2003, filed under Section 320 (8) of Cr.P.C. for passing consequential order of acquittal.

2. The appellants namely Phool singh Sahu, S/o Kejau Sahu and Ram Singh Sahu, S/o Kejou Sahu have been convicted by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund for commission of offence under Section 325 of I.P.C. by his judgment dated 25.02.2003 in S.T.No.44/2002 and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months.

3. The application M.Cr.P. No. 1682/2003 has been filed by both, complainant Shkhiram Sahu, S/o Mangiya and appellants namely Phool Singh Sahu and Ram Singh Sahu under Section 320(2)(5) of Cr.P.C for grant of leave and permission to compound the offence. The application M.Cr.P.No.1683/2003 has been filed under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. for passing consequential order of acquittal.

4. It is stated in the applications that the complainant and the accused/appellants are residing in the same village and they have settled the dispute amicably and they want to maintain good relations for the purpose of peace and harmony, hence they want to compro-mise the offence.

5. Shri Arun Kochar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused submitted that both the complainant and the appellants have signed these applications and they are present before the court. Shri Rakesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant Sukhram is also present before the Court and he has identified him. Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer, for the State has no objection for allowing these applications and grant leave to com-plainant and the accused/appellant to compound the offence. Section 325 I.P.C. is compoundable with the permission of the Court according to the table under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C.

6. For the reasons stated in the appellants, I am of the opinion that it is appropriate to grant leave to compound the offence. The complainant and the accused/appellants have stated that they have compounded the offence and it is recorded. Accordingly, the judgment dated 25.2.2003, passed by the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Manasamund, convi-cting the appellants under Section 325 of IPC is set aside. The accused-appe-llants are acquitted of the said charge.

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.

Parties are entitled for certified copy of this order.

Appeal disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top