ORDER :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.05.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No. 121 of 1999 and Sessions Trial No. 171 of 2002, in connection with Taljhari P.S. Case No. 49 of 1996, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 399 of 1996, Rajmahal, Jharkhand, whereby and where under the learned trial court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable u/Ss.341, 326 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C.) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as the R.I.) for 5 (five) years u/s 326 of the I.P.C., further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 (five) years under section 394 of the I.P.C. and simple imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as the S.I.) for one month u/s 341 of the I.P.C. and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case as per F.I.R. (Ext.2) in brief is that on 16.09.1996 at about 7.30 pm, informant Nandu Mohali was going to his house which was situated in village Purato within P.S. Taljhari, District-Sahibganj from his Aunt’s house. The informant was having a plastic bag which was containing Rs. 270/- (Rupees two Hundred and Seventy only) in cash and 200 gm (two hundred gram) of mustard oil in a bottle. The informant was also having an umbrella in his hand. When the informant covered distance of hundred yards, accused Shankar Prasad Gupta met him on the way, stopped him and caught hold of him and tried to snatch the bag. The informant protested upon which the accused inflicted a dagger blow upon the informant. As a result, the informant sustained long cut bleeding injury on his cheek. Thereafter, the accused took the bag and took to his heels. The informant became unconscious and when he regained his sense he found himself in the Sadar Hospital, Sahibganj where he was being treated.

3. On 19.09.1996 the police recorded his fardbeyan when he became able to speak and on that basis registered a case u/Ss. 341, 324, 307 and 379 of the I.P.C. against the present accused and after investigation submitted charge-sheet u/Ss. 341, 326, 307 and 379 of the I.P.C. Thereafter, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges on 05.09.2002 against the accused appellant for the offence punishable u/ss. 341, 326, 307 and 394 of the I.P.C. The charges were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge in this appeal.

5. Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Ram Chander Sahoo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and Mrs. Nihala Sharmin, learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants & Informant

6. Learned defence counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for wife of the informant (since deceased) and for Anjala Tudu (P.W.4 ) submitted that although the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/Ss. 341, 394, and 326 of the I.P.C. which are not compoundable in nature, but, now over a period of time a good sense has prevailed amongst them and now the matter has been compromised and, therefore, a joint compromise petition has been filed vide Interlocutory Application (hereinafter referred to as the I.A.) No. 2043 of 2022 which has duly been sworn in on affidavit by one of the eye witness AnjaliyaTudu @ Anjala Tudu and by the wife of the informant (since the informant is dead) Sona Hembrom stating that both the parties have resolved their dispute amicably and the wife of the informant and the P.W. 4 who were aggrieved party on the side of prosecution don’t want to pursue this case because the compromise and settlement has been arrived at between the parties amicably. Learned coun