IN THE HIGH couRT OF ,JUDICATURE AT BILAsPuR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. Qé$/2oo9 APPELLANTS: 1. Dinesh Mahan'r, son of Udai (W) V 2. Dhananjai Das, son of Firtu Dos, aged 25 years. 3. Gopoldas, son of Samay Das‘, aged 22 year's. 4. Chefan Das, son of Mohan Dos, Das Mahan’r, aged 3O years. .EX‘Qx . aged 30 Year's. k 5. Bhikamdas, son of Laxman Das, aged 23 years. g‘ 6. Mdnkudas, son of Manidas, aged 45 year‘s. 7.Vino.ddas, son of Udai Das, 9.Mohandas, son of Milandas, aged 60 year's, residenf of Bamnidih, P.S. P.S. Village Bamnidih, Rohda, Saragaon, Districf Janjgir— Champa(CG). 10.3huvneshwar‘ Das, son of Mohandas, aged 28 years. 11. Preemmdas, son of Mohandas, aged 28 years. 12. Udai Das, son of Bachan Das, aged 53 years. 13.Rameshwar Das, son of ‘4 Nip Z aged 20 years. 8. Shivdas, son of Manidas, aged 50 year's. Udaidas, aged 30 years. 14. Ramayan Das, son of Shiv Das, aged 22 yea‘r‘s. 8 & residenfs of Village Rohda, P.S. Saragaon, Champa (CG) Vs S’rafe of ChhaTTisgarh, Through Police SfaTion Saragaon, DisTricT Janjgir—Champa (CG). No.1 To‘ 10 f0 14 are Disfr'ic‘r Janjgir- RESPONDENT: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3741?) OF THE CODE OF Being aggrieved by The judgmenT of convicTion and order of sem‘ence dafed 18*“ Mari? 2009 passed by fhe Cour‘r of Shri S.R. BanjaFe, Iearned Addi’rional Sessions CONVICTION ( S 1 / SENTENCE (5) if U/s 14f of I.P.c. R.I. for 6’mom‘hs each wifh fine of Rs.5057:: in defoul’r addi'rional R.I. for 2Q'mon’rhs. 1%” U/s323’}/)w149 3f The IPC for causing injuries To Bhis’Em Prasad Bare‘rh. Fine of Rs.5o6/-, in defauH addi’rio‘nd RI. forZ’Wi/om‘hs. U/s 323/149 for causing injuries fo Ghasnibaiw’ Fine of Rs.5067-, in defaulf addifional R.I. for 2 mom‘hs. U/s 323/14? for causing injuries .To Raj kumartow 3 Fine of Rs.5o‘6/—, in defauH additional R.I. for Zfr’r‘i'onfhs. u/s 323/149< for causing injuries To Dilharan Fine of Rs.5o6/—, in defaul‘r _addifional R.I. for Z/monfhs. Prasad Bareth (PW-1), Ghasni Kumar Patel (PW-7) are also pre Heard on IA No. 3, filed Criminal Procedure for permiss been duly supported by the affidz Counsel for the parties sul the IPC is compoundable in natL same village and have settled t fear or pressure from anyone an between them. 1 Bai (PW-2), Dilharan (PW-3) and Raj sent before this Court. under Section 320 (5) of the Code of on to compound the offence which has lvits of the parties. )mit that the offence under Section 323 of re. They submit that the parties are of the he dispute outside the Court without any j henceforth they will not have any grudge desired by the parties is per - ( l I In view of above, the application is allowed and the compromise n%1itted to be entered into. Result of this W m tt Wm rah—{a mar. We; m mm mmmm WWW a: aim fif’e'qt m WK SB: Hon Mr Justice Pritinker Diwaker y 01.03.2011: j Shri V.C. Ottalwar counsel for the appellants. Shri Neeraj Mehta PL for the respondent/State. Shri Sameer Singh counsel for the complainant/victim. Complainant and appellan:s exCept Ramayan Das (Appellant No.14) are present before this Court who are identified by their counsel. Bhisham mm W 200 Wan.- mmmm ‘ Wmg§$W compromise would be the acqui 'tal of the appellants/accused of the offence under Section 147 and 323/149 IPC. Order accordin/gIM// f .eixi/ d]- f t ‘ vrmnker Diwake? Judge ”r i