^ ? —^ 1 —?2 ^ o? t ^ - H <^J, '' ^'1 ^.1 ^14-1 ^iei ..._.^^. -A—.i^-..^ .-Qg S "^l B CF0000058792 IEE; the Hi&Ii Gourt of Madhya Pradesh, at Jatsalpur, M.P. Or.A.,No..^/4___/93. '^ , ^^ fr^_j{ Single Bendi (Cnmin^l 1« R&mjhul s/o Pyarelal Kunai, aged about | 45.yeaps» : 2» Ehedu s/©I^mjhul, aged about 26 years^ Both are resident ©fvillage Ohittavrar, PaS^. lakhatfur^ Mstrio-t Bilas|iur»,e»• Apwellaats Vrs. ^ 1 State of M:»?<» tlirou&a the Dis:triet Magis'trate, ^ „ . _-.. -. . ^ . .-^—1 Bilas^ur ...... •., • .. • . * • ^st®Ilda.atL e-riminal A@^eal u/s 574 (2) read wlth section 576 ©fGriminal proeedure Gode. BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.07 11:59:11 +0530 ^r- HI6H COURT OF CHH^TTISeARH AT BIL^SPU» Sir^le Bench : Hon'ble Mr, Justice Pritinker &»wa(<®r Criminal Apoeal No. 811 of 1993 APPELLANTS RESPONDENT RGimjhu! d another Versus Stat® of AAadhyQ Pradesh (rsow Chhattisgarh) Shri Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, counse! for the appejjants. Shri Vivek Sharma, PL for the State/respondent. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER S6CTEON 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCE&URE JUD6MENT (31.03.2010) This appea! is directed Qgoinst the impugned judgment dated 13.8.1993 passed by 4th Additiond Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trioj No. 195/1991 convicting the accused/appetlant No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indion Penat Code ond sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months ond 3 days ond accused/appellant No. 2 for the offence punJshabSe under Section 307 of the Indio-n Pena! Code- and sentencmg hlm to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. Counsej for the oppellants submits thot he is not pressing this appeai as far ois it relotes to appe!(ant No. 1 as he has olready undergone the entire sentence and woujd confine his argument only in respect of the appeliant No. 2. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 6.12.1990 ot about 12,30 pm F.I.R. (Ex.P-l) wes lod^ed by Chamru (PW-1) dleging in it that on that day about 7 am in the morning there was some ajtercation between him and his unc!© Ramjhu! (appellant No.l) and his cousin brother Khedu (oppelicnt No. 2) and he was assaulted by Ramjhuj with the help of Lothi whereas Khedu has assaulted him with the heip of axe, as a result of which he sustdned injuries. After investi^itjon, ; challan was filed against the cccused/appeHcnts for the offence under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code ond they were prosecuted for the said offence. 4. So as to hold to accused/GppetJants guilty, prosecutjon hos examined as many QS 07 wjtnesses in support of its case. Statements of the occused/appetlonts were aiso recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Crjminal Procedure in which they denied the charges leyelled Qgainst them o.nd pieaded their innocence and faise imptication in the cose. Thjs Qpart-, witness namely Satruhan Lal (DW-l) has also been examJned by the defence in support of its cos©. 5. After hearing the pcrl'ies the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/Gppellonts for the offenc^ as mentioned above. Hence this appeoij. 6. Heard counsel for the porties and perused the mciterJot availableon record including thejudgment impugned. 7. Counsel for the appellonts submits that he has fi!ed an applicort'ion under Section 320(2) of the Code of Criminfltl Procedure for compounding the offence. He sybmJt^that both the oppellants and the comptainant Chomru are present jn the Court". He submits thot appellants ond the cornpjainoint are close relatives and incident had taken plcice on account of minor dispute of the part'ition of th@ court'yard. He submits thort' finaneial conditjon of the appdjants as well o®eompjainant is pathetjc and they cre surviving by working as labourer. He submits thot oppellant No. 2 is now aged about 46 years and hos nume-rous fe»nJ!yresponsjbjjities. He further submfts thot appellant No. 2 has ajready remained in jaij for about 4 months, no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail ond it woujd be in the intere.st of justie®if the sentence imposed on him Ss reduced to the periQd already undergone by him. To thjs, counsel for th@ Stote has no serious objection but h©submits that offence under Section 307 of the Indian Peno! Code is not compoundable. 8. In view of above, the appeol is parl-jy aliowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment js mointciined. Appelionts and the complainont are cjose relative, they are living happily in Q Joint famjiy, their financial condition appears to be pathetic, appellont No. 2 has atready remained in jail for obout 4 months ond the application has also been fjjed for compounding the offence, though the scime is not maintainable, in the larger interest of Justice and in the pecuiiar facts <& cjrcumstoinces of the coise, sentence of the appejlant No. 2 is reduced to the period alreody undergone by him. 9. Appeal thus parl-ly succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge