Back
2005 Supreme(Raj) 1025
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : H.R. Panwar
Mohan Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 2004
Decided On : 04/20/2005
Mr. Umesh Shrimalee, for the Appellants. Mr.O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. S.G. Ojha, for the Complainant.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the influence of a genuine compromise between the parties on the court's decision, along with the legal provisions for compounding offenses under Section 320 CrPC.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentencing under various sections of IPC - Section 447, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307/34 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the offenses under Sections 447, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307/34 IPC and their compounding under Section 320 CrPC. The court also referred to the legal provisions for compounding offenses and the influence of a genuine compromise between the parties on the final decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the judgment convicting and sentencing them for various offenses including criminal trespass and causing injuries to the complainant party. The complainant party and the accused were close relatives, and a genuine compromise was reached between them. The court analyzed the evidence, including medical reports, and considered the nature of injuries sustained by the victims.
Finding of the Court:
The court acquitted the appellants of the offense under Section 307, 307/34 IPC, and allowed the compounding of other offenses under Sections 447, 323, 324, 324/34, 325, 325/34 IPC. The court reduced the substantive sentence for the remaining offenses and awarded compensation to the injured parties.
Issues: The court considered the material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, the nature of injuries sustained, and the genuine compromise reached between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the genuine compromise between the parties, the nature of injuries sustained, and the legal provisions for compounding offenses under Section 320 CrPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the conviction under Section 307, 307/34 IPC, and maintaining the conviction under Section 326, 326/34 IPC. The substantive sentence was reduced, and the appellants were acquitted of certain offenses after compounding. Compensation was awarded to the injured parties, and the appellants were set at liberty.
H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC, the accused-appellants have challenged the Judgment and order dated 08.06.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jalore (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 21/2003 (138/2003), by which the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-
1. Appellant Mohan Lal:
(i) Section 447 IPC: one months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo 7 days simple imprisonment.
(ii) Section 323 IPC: six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.
(iii) Section 324/34 IPC: One years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months simple imprisonment.
(iv) Section 325 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months simple imprisonment.
(v) Section 326/34 IPC: Five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1500/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo 9 months simple imprisonment.
(vi) Section 307/34 IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one years simple imprisonment.
(2) Appellant Ramesh Kumar:
(i) Section 447 IPC: One months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo 7 days simple imprisonment.
(ii) Section 323 IPC: Six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.
(iii) Section 324 IPC: One years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months simple imprisonment.
(iv) Section 325/34 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months simple imprisonment.
(v) Section 326 IPC: Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1500/-and in default of
payment of fine further to undergo nine months simple imprisonment.
(vi) Section 307 IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one years simple imprisonment.
2. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The facts of the case, succinctly stated, are that on 16.07.2003, complainant PW. 3 Hadmata Ram lodged an FIR with Police Station, Kotwali, Jalore, to the effect that when he, his mother, father Shankar Lal, brother Chhagan Lal, sister Ansi and sister-in-law (brothers wife) Smt. Indra were sleeping in their house at about 9:00 p.m., appellants Mohan Lal and Ramesh, alongwith, Maga Ram, Smt. Lachhi and Savitri hatched a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance thereof committed criminal trespass by entering complainants house armed with deadly weapons like axes and Lathis and inflicted injuries to his father Shankar Lal, brother Chhagan Lal, sister Anchi and the complainant PW. 3. It has further been alleged that prior to this incident, appellant Ramesh crossed their house silently and on being asked why he was doing so, appellant Ramesh told what the complainant had to do. Thereafter the accused-party committed the aforesaid offences. After investigation, the police filed challan against the appellants. The trial Court framed charges against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 307 read with Section 34, IPC, to which the appellants denied having committed any offence and sought trial. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned Judgment as also the record of the case.
5. It has been contended by the learned C
