IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 908 of 2007 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

CHATTRSINGH @ LALO HARIBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS SHAILI KAPADIA ADVOCATE WITH MR ARPIT A KAPADIA(3974) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK MEHTA APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 20/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The challenge in this appeal is given to the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 08.06.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bharuch in Special Atrocity Case No.13 of 2006, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, under Section 504 of IPC three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.400/- and under Section 3((i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Atrocities Act’) six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.800/- and in default of payment of fine further three months, one month and two months simple imprisonment respectively.

2. When the matter was taken up, learned advocate Ms. Shaili Kapadia referring to sections on which the appellant got convicted submitted that sections invoked of I.P.C. are compoundable and further stated that the original complainant and the injured have died and now his son Rajesh Gopalbhai Vasava wanted to settle the dispute, and does not want to continue with the grudge of conviction, as both, the appellant and as a son of complainant and his family are neighbours having their agriculture land adjoining to each other, thus for peaceful co-existence, Advocate Ms. Kapadia submitted that they have been desirous of settling the dispute.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Sunil H.Prajapati appearing for Rajesh Gopalbhai Vasava, the son of the original complainant, submitted that he got it affirmed from the son of complainant, Rajesh Gopalbhai Vasava, of the settlement and thereby an affidavit has been executed before the Notary. Advocate Mr. Prajapati proposes to file Vakalatnama. The registry to accept the same.

3.1 Rajesh Gopalbhai Vasava, son of the complainant, is present before this Court along with his affidavit and copy of death certificate of his parents Gopalbhai and Surajben, who died on 12.07.2012 and 15.05.2008 respectively. The copy of settlement deed from the side of accused, which was drawn before the Notary today i.e. on 20.02.2026 is also produced on record, where the accused has assured that he and his family would not in future have any dispute with regard to the agricultural activities of both the families.

4. Learned APP Mr. Hardik Mehta resisting to the settlement submitted that though Section 324 and Section 504 of the I.P.C. , as was provided under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., prior to the amendment, permits the settlement, however taking into consideration the object of Atrocity Act, has urged the Court that the interest of the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe are required to be protected and an example is required to be set so that no member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe would ever get offended in future, hence, stated that the offence need not be settled.

5. Perused the facts of the case, it appears that there was some allegation upon appellant with regard to destruction of branches and some ‘Paras’ flower and thus, the appellant rushed to assault the deponent, who had filed the affidavit today i.e. Rajesh Gopalbhai Vasava, who at that relevant time was too young, and when the mother Sarojben intervened to p