1. Appeal against conviction under Section 323/34 IPC (five counts), arising from an altercation; trial proceeded, other charges failed, and parties later sought compounding of offences. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 )
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J.
Achchhelal And Others - Appellants
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2011
Decided On : 27-01-2026
1. Appeal against conviction under Section 323/34 IPC (five counts), arising from an altercation; trial proceeded, other charges failed, and parties later sought compounding of offences. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 )
2. Appellants pleaded innocence and false implication; on appeal, they sought compounding of the compoundable offences with consent of injured parties. (Para 8 , 10 )
3. Compounding permitted; appellants acquitted; fine refunded; bail bonds discharged; appeal disposed; trial court's property-disposal order affirmed. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 )
Yes, an offence under Section 323/34 IPC is compoundable; where the parties settle their dispute, the court may permit compounding. (Para 11 )
That the parties entered the compromise voluntarily, of their own free will, and without threat or coercion; the compromise is verified before permission is granted. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
The conviction is set aside and the appellants are acquitted; any fine deposited is refunded, bail bonds stand discharged, and the appeal is disposed of. (Para 12 , 13 , 16 )
JUDGMENT :
RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J.
This appeal has been filed by the appellants, namely, Achchhelal, Mulle and Kallu under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2010 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), District Sagar (M.P.) in S.T. No.453/2010 whereby all the appellants have been convicted under Section 323/34 of IPC (05 counts) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.300/- by each accused under each count, with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Pappu Yadav lodged a report (Ex.P/8) in Police Station Baraitha to the effect that on 2/2/2010 he was going to load bricks in the tractor. When his tractor was passing through the field of Malli Yadav, Malli Yadav abused him, and when he objected, Kallu and Neeraj came and Kallu hit him with sticks on his waist, elbows and hands and legs, Neeraj beat Sohan by means of lathis and when they ran away with the tractor, they found Bhakanbai near the pond, then Kallu and Neeraj came along with Achhelal and Malli and Malli hit Katrana on the head of his Bhabhi, Kallu beat Ramprasad and Shivcharan with sticks due to which they got injured. Dharam Yadav and Divyu Yadav also came on the spot, who saw the incident and intervened. All the accused persons fled from there giving threat to kill the complainant party. On the complaint of Pappu, a report was written by Sub Inspector Sanjeev Kumar Choukse. Assistant Sub Inspector Hariom Purohit prepared the spot map of the incident. The injured were medically examined, the X-ray examination of injured Sohan was conducted as per Ex.P/19 and to know the nature of injuries to the injured Pappu, Sohan and Smt. Bhaktan, the nature of injuries was ascertained by submitting applications as per Ex.P/8 to P/10 for conducting a query. Arrest memos of accused were preparedvide Ex.P/1 to P/4 and the weapons used in the incident were seized as per memo Ex.P/5 to P/7.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the competent court, which on its turn committed the case to the court of Sessions and from where it was made over to VII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), District Sagar for trial.
4. The learned trial Judge on going through the evidence available in the charge sheet framed charge against appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 323/34 (five counts) of IPC, which they denied and claimed for the trial.
5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, namely, Sheetal Yadav (PW-1), Dhaniram (PW-2), Pappu (PW-3), Rampa @ Ramprasad (PW-4) Sohan Yadav (PW-5), Shivcharan (PW-6), Bhaktan Bai (PW-7), Dibbu (PW-8), Dharam (PW-9), Hariom Purohit (PW-10), Dr. Amit Asati (PW-11) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/21 and Ex.D/1 to D/11 the documents on record.
6 . The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. The defence of accused is of false implication. The have examined Bandhu Yadav (DW-1) in their defence.
7. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence has acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section 294 and 506 Part-II of IPC but has convicted them for the offence under Sections 323/34 (05 counts) of IPC. The learned Trial Court has sentenced the accused persons as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by appellants.
8. During pendency of this appeal, counsel for the appellants has filed I.A. No.29746/2025 - an application under Section 320(1) and 320(2) of Cr.P.C. for for grant of permission to compound the offences. The said application is duly supported by affidavits of all the appellants, complainant and injured persons.
9. Matter was referred to the Registrar Judicial-II for verification of compromise vide order dated 05.01.2026 and the Registrar Judicial-II in compliance of this Court's order has verified the
AI
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