Settlement between parties can lead to the acquittal of charges, even post-conviction.

O R D E R

The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, and the Additional Sessions Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram, in C.C.No.2320/2006 & Crl.A.No.361/2010 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the commission of offences under Sections 143 , 147, 447 & 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC ’), are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners, along with the other three accused, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed rioting on 26.03.2006, by criminally trespassing into the property of PW1, and committing destructions to the rubber trees in that property by cutting open a road through that property.

3. The learned Magistrate, after analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the examination of five witnesses as PW1 to PW5, and the marking of five documents as Exts P1 to P5, held that the prosecution has successfully established the commission of offence under the aforesaid Sections by the petitioners. The Appellate Court, after a re-appraisal of the aforesaid evidence, concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. It is aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, that the petitioners have preferred this revision petition.

4. During the course of the proceedings in this revision, the petitioners settled the issue with the de facto complainant/PW1. Accordingly, applications were filed for the impleadment of the de facto complainant as the additional second respondent and also seeking permission to compound the case. All those applications stood allowed vide orders passed by this Court in Crl.M.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2026. The additional second respondent appeared through counsel.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the learned counsel for the additional second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. The applications filed before this Court as Crl.M.A.Nos.1 of

2026, 2 of 2026 & 3 of 2026 would reveal that the issue involved in this case has been amicably settled between the petitioners and the additional second respondent. The additional second respondent, who is the de facto complainant, is a signatory to Crl.M.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2026, in which she, along with the petitioners, have requested to acquit the petitioners of the offences found against them by the courts below. 7. It appears that the issue involved in this case is purely private in nature. PW1, who is said to have suffered monetary loss, as a result of the alleged act of the petitioners committing destructions in the property, is now having no grievance as against the petitioners. Furthermore, PW1 has requested to acquit the accused/petitioners in connection with the offences found against him by the courts below. Having regard to the above peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that there is no purpose to be accomplished by enforcing the sentence awarded by the courts below upon the petitioners. So also, the conviction of the petitioners for the aforesaid offences is liable to be set aside, in the light of the settlement of issue between the parties. Such a course is highly necessary to preserve harmonious relationships between the parties.

In the result, the revision petition stands allowed as follows:

(i) The concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the commission of offences under Sections 143 , 147, 447 & 427 read with Section 149 IPC , are hereby set aside.

(ii) The petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 4 are found not guilty of the aforesaid offences, and they are acquitted thereunder.

(iii) The bail bonds executed by the petitioners/