l?..-.-:^^ ^1'';^^*- ^^s" A ^'A ...-•" ^' SIngtoBench XM THE HIGH COUKT O? GiHXE'TISGAKHA JUDIC^FURE AtP BILASPUK. Cr.A.EEe.^^ of 2008 1, ArJ^a Siagh S/©Jagtar Si^gM Ageci 37 years^ Occ^>atieB-Driver Cam^-1 B^aiiai (C.G.) Appella3atZ^oc]ised 1m Jail 'n^p)60 ^ 2» G^rjeet ^i^igh S/©Jagt©^sim^i Aged 37 years^sexr^ice i^ pla^t R/e CaMp-l^ Dist-Darg» 3» Pawaa ^lias Maleadra\Mishra S/© -c0^ '^ ^^flAlJ^^A'V2-6_ Deep Ha\^ara ^ishra, \lged 22 years, ^•°'.J^Y . ^ V<^ Cam©-\, Bhilai, Di^t- D^rg. \0^ Respo^deMt : / VersMs_ -^^1r v^.6<> &/^ Camg>-\, Bhilai, Di^t- D^rg. f^-^^^''''^.. •Z'2.)B.^ State of C.G« Police-liae (Aarlsshi Kex^dra S^ela, Dist- Dmcg (C,G.) Cft.tMT^AL- ^PP^A^ (j/j '37^0.53 Ct. P-^ 9^--2. r<8.<='8 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Criminal Appeal No. 639/2008 APPELLANT Pawan alias Malendra Mishra RESPONDENT ^PPELLANTS RESPONDENT Versus State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Appeal No. 779/2008 Arjun Singh and another Versus State of Chhattisgarh Shri Manish Sharma and Shri Viprasen Agrawal coynsel for the appellants. Shri Neeraj Mehta PLforthe State. Shri Jitendra Guptacounsel for thecomplainant. Complainant Jagir Singh is also present before this Court and duly identified by Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 f2l OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT (0^.05.2011) Since both the aforesaid appeats arise out ofjudgment and order dated 05.05.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Dui-g, in Ses^ions Trial No. 159/2007 convicting the accused/appellants under Section 307/34 IPC and sentencing each of them to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine of Rs. 5000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 8.3.2007 at about 10.30 p.m victim Jagir Singh had gone to the house of the accused/appellant Arjun Singh along with his brother Raju Singh, where he along with the accused/appellants consumed liquor together. Thereafter, allegedly some altercation took place between them and in the course of that ^ -2- altercation all the accused/appellants assaulted the victim with knife and dagger. Further case of the prosecution is that to save himself the victim entered the house of one Paramje6t Kaur (PW-10) but from where also he was dragged out and again assaulted by the accused/appellants. Dehati Nalisi Ex. P-14 was recorded at the instance of said Paramjeet Kaur on the basis of which FIR Ex. P-13 was registered against the accused/appellants under section 307/34 IPCand after compietion of investigation, challan was filed on 5.5.2007 for the offences under sections 307/34 and 323 IPC. However, the trial - Court framed the charge under section 307/34 IPC only. „ 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants gyilty, prosecution has examined 17 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused /appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellantsas mentioned above in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. 5. Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that they are not pressing these appeals on merit and would confine their arguments to the sentence part thereof only. They submitthat the appellants have filed applications under sections 320 (2) and 320 (5) of theCode of Criminal Procedure duly supported by the affidavit of the complainant. They submit that complainant Jagir Singh is the co-brother of accused i Arjun Singh, that the incident had taken place while the j accused/appellants and the complainant were under the influence of i liquor, that the appellants have already remained in jail for about 4 j years and 2 months and thatthe appellants are ready and willing to I adequately compensate the victim and in these circumstances it would j be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. While making submissions counsel for the appetlants took this Court through the dedsion of the Supreme Court in the matter of Pappu and others v. State of Punjab AIR 2000 SC 3633 in which it is held that as the ...^^'^^^:.\ f^^ ^1 ;' / 1 ^ ^^"^ y^-] — -^ the disputeinter se has been settled and there is genuine compromise between the parties, sentence of accused can be reduced to the period already undergone. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State opposing the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants submits that since the offence under Section 307 IPC is not compoundable in nature. the aforesaid two applications filed by theappellants are liable to be rejected. He further argues that as many as 26 injuries including some incised wounds were inflicted to the victim for which he remained hospitalised for about two months in Sector - 9 Hospital, Bhilai and a huge amount was incurred by him for his medical treatment. 7. On being asked by this Court the complainant Jagir Singh who is personally present before this Court has informed that the dispute betweenhim and the accused/appellants has been settled amicably out side the Court. 8. Thus as the appellantsare not pressing these appeals on merit, the conviction part of the judgment impugned is left undisturbed. However, as regards sentence, since the dispute inter se has been settled and genuine compromise has been arrived at between the accused/appellants and the complainant out side the Court; complainant happens to be the close relative of accused Arjun Singh; accused/appellants have already remained in jail for about four years and two months and the appellants are ready to adequately compensate the complainant, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on them is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for five years from that often years subject to payment of certain monetary compensation to the complainanVvictim in terms of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the judgment impugned is maintained. Sentence imposed on the accused/appellants is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for five years from that of ten years. However, in terms of Section 357 of the Code of ^syy^^ s 'SK:^^ 1 -^- Criminal Procedure the appellants shall deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000 before the Court below for being paid to the complainant, within a period of one month from today. Failure in doing so shall not bring this order into operation. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge