Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Indraraj S/o Shri Rajaram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1438 of 2018
Decided On : 11-10-2022
Criminal Appeal - Land Dispute - Sections 148, 307, 307/149, 323, 323/149, 324/149, 326 and 326/149 I.P.C. - The court discussed the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Sohan Puri and Others vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 894/2005), decided on 23.03.2022. The court also referred to legal principles applicable in regard to an application seeking discharge and several judgments of the Supreme Court interpreting Section 307 of the Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) in a land dispute case. The present criminal appeals pertain to cross cases between the parties arising from a physical tussle over possession of a certain land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the nature of injury created a doubt as to whether there was any intention of causing death or attempt to murder. The court balanced the applicability of Section 326 IPC vis-a-vis Section 307 IPC and replaced the conviction under Section 307 IPC with Section 326 IPC. The court also considered the compromise entered into between the parties and the fact that they being neighbors have decided to bury the hatchet.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of various sections of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) in a land dispute case, the balance between the applicability of Section 326 IPC and Section 307 IPC, and the acceptance of the compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the applicability of Section 326 IPC vis-a-vis Section 307 IPC and replaced the conviction under Section 307 IPC with Section 326 IPC. The court also considered the compromise entered into between the parties and the fact that they being neighbors have decided to bury the hatchet.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and acquitted the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 894/2005. In Criminal Appeal No. 910/2005, the court granted the appellant the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and released the appellant after due admonition.
Key Points: - The court balanced the applicability of Section 326 IPC vis-a-vis Section 307 IPC and replaced conviction under Section 307 IPC with Section 326 IPC. (!) (!) - The compromise between the parties, being neighbors in a land-dispute, was considered to bury hatchet and influenced quashing of proceedings/acquittal in certain appeals. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court exercised powers under Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings and acquit the appellants, citing factors like private nature of offences, lack of grave violence, and voluntary settlement. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 910/2005 received the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act due to lack of prior antecedents and the nature of the offence (Section 323 IPC). (!) (!) (!) - The judgment discusses the broader legal principles for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and the interplay with Article 142/Section 482 powers in quashing proceedings. (!) (!) (!)
ORDER :
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties are neighbors and due to land dispute an altercation happened between the parties, which resulted into the present incident.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant makes a statement at Bar that there are no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant has undergone custody of two months at earlier stage.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 675 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Sohan Puri and Others vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 894/2005), decided on 23.03.2022, which reads as follows:
2. These criminal appeals, under Section 374 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
Appeal No. 894/2005:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the appeal of the appellants may kindly be allowed and the judgment dated 25.11.2005 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 317/2003, State vs. Sohan Puri and Others, may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of conviction to the appellants and the appellants may kindly be acquitted from the charges.”
Appeal No. 910/2005:
“Therefore, it is prayed by the humble appellant that this Criminal appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned Judgment dated 25.11.2005 passed by the Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bikaner may kindly be quashed and set aside and benefit of probation act may kindly be given to the present appellant because no other criminal case is pending against him, therefore, it would in the interest of justice to grant him benefit of probation act. Record of the trial court may kindly be directed to called for the proper decision of the case.”
3. The brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pravin Vyas appearing on behalf of the appellants are that the appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 148, 307, 307/149, 323, 323/149, 324/149, 326 and 326/149 I.P.C. vide the impugned judgments, dated 25.11.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 317/03 and 18/2005.
3.1 The present controversy arose when both the parties had staked claim over possession of a certain land, and that in the heat of the moment, a physical tussle broke out between the parties in respect of the land in question, and F.I.R. were lodged and cross cases were filed, subsequent to said incident. Thus, as per the pleaded facts, the present criminal appeals pertain to the said cross cases between the parties.
3.2 The present appeals preferred against the judgments of conviction in question were admitted and the sentences so awarded to the appellants were suspended. However, upon an application being preferred by the applicant/appellant-Shiv Puri @ Babu Puri under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of his conviction (in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 894/2005), the same w
The main legal point established in the judgment is the balance between the applicability of Section 326 IPC and Section 307 IPC in cases involving doubts about the intention of causing death or atte....
The main legal point established is the court's wide amplitude of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, allowing it to quash criminal proceedings beyond the statutory framework, considering t....
(1) Compounding of offence – Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence.(2) Mere mention of....
The court can quash criminal proceedings and allow the compound of offences based on an amicable settlement, even for non-compoundable offences, in the interest of securing the ends of justice.
High Court can quash post-conviction for non-heinous private offences like grievous hurt upon family compromise using inherent powers to ensure harmony and justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
