1 Criminal Appeal No.118/1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.118 OF 1999 Digambar Bajirao Thakare, Age 47 years, Occupation Service, R/o Khur-Daithan, Taluka Jamkhed, District Ahmednagar (Now in Ahmednagar Jail) ... APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Notice to be served on the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad 2. Mr. Devidas Bapu Dhuche, Age 75 years, Occupation Agri., R/o Village Khuredaithan, Taluka Jamkhed, District Ahmednagbar ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri A.B. Gatne, Advocate for the appellant Shri N.B. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri S.K. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 25th March, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Gatne for the appellant and Mr. Shinde for original complainant. The appellant impugns conviction for an 2 Criminal Appeal No.118/1999 offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, directing rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with default clause in Sessions Case No.136/1998, by order dated 8.3.1999, recorded by learned Sessions Judge at Ahmednagar. 2. Both the learned counsel by joint purshis, submit that, they have patched up their controversies. The offence being of 1998, dated 22.6.1998, due to long drawn intervening period of 12-13 years, parties have already settled their controversy. The accused/appellant has suffered the brunt by remaining in custody for two months and no purpose could be served by sending him for further period to undergo the remaining sentence. 3. The accused/ appellant and the complainant are residing in the same village and by intervention of relatives and villagers, the matter is settled. The complainant has no grudge or grievance against the accused/ appellant. These aspects recorded under signature and T.I. of the respective parties are reiterated by the learned counsel. In the same line affidavit is filed by Devidas Bapu Dhuche, the complainant. 3. My attention was invited the judgment of this Court in the matter of Madan s/o Suleman Gaure Vs. State of Maharashtra 3 Criminal Appeal No.118/1999 (1995 CRI.L.J. 1419), wherein in identically placed situation, the conviction under Section 307 of the Indian penal Code was recorded and a joint purshis of compromise between the accused/ appellant and complainant was tendered. This Court, having noticed that the appellant was not previously convicted nor a harden criminal, the sentence was reduced to already undergone and compensation was awarded. 4. In the matter of Bhupendra Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1981 SC 1240), the matter involved conflict of Sections 324, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Apex Court altered the conviction under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code to a conviction under Section 324 and request to compound the offence was accepted in view of relationship between the student, the accused/ appellant therein. 5. In the matter of Manoj and another Vs. State of M.P. (AIR 2009 SC 22), the Apex Court dealt with provisions of Section 320(2) relating to compounding of offence. In the said case, the accused was convicted for causing hurt to complainant by dangerous weapon, which gave rise to F.I.R. Since the parties resided in the same village, with the intervention of Village Panchayat, the matter was compounded. The complainant had no 4 Criminal Appeal No.118/1999 grievance against the accused/applicant. The Hon’ble Lordships considered the effect of amendment, which then did not come into force and gave benefit to the accused/ applicant. 6. In the matter of Murugesan and others Vs. Ganapathy Velar (2001 AIR SCW 4769), appeal against conviction was preferred for offence punishable under Sections 323, 343, 355 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. The Apex Court accepted the plea of compromise as the matter was resolved and maintained the conviction, substantive sentence reduced to the period already undergone. 7. In the matter of Ishwar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (AIR 2009 SC 675), the Hon’ble Lordships were dealing with conviction for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, a non compoundable offence, parties reached to compromise. The offence could not be compounded, however, compromise was considered while awarding sentence. 8. Survey of above judgments, coupled with the joint purshis of affidavit of the complainant, illustrate that the accused/ appellant herein was 47 years old with unblemished record, the incident of assault has taken place due to provocation and 5 Criminal Appeal No.118/1999 annoyance, he inflicted blow of stick on the left side shoulder and at the back of the complainant. Even there were 11 injuries on the person of the complainant, however, there was no explanation about who caused those additional injuries to the complainant as in the F.I.R., the complainant recorded authorship of three injuries to the accused/ appellant. 9. Considering the events and worth of the evidence, as the matter is worked out between the parties, the appeal of appellant/ accused is partly allowed. The conviction is maintained. The sentence of undergoing rigorous imprisonment for five years is reduced to the period already undergone, which is two months. The fine amount is maintained. Appeal partly allowed in above terms. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE