^/.^ it ^gi ;-""lp V (> HIGH COURT OF CHHAlTiSQARH AT BiLASPUR Criminai^ppeaLNo.SSS of 1932 APPELLANT/: (Accused — In Jall) RESPONDENT: Lekh Ram, S/o Udairam Lodhi, aged 24 years, PJo Titurghat, P.S. Dhamdha, Distt. Durg, M.P. (now C.G.) Versus State of M.P. (now C.G.), through the P.S. Dhamdha, Distt. Durg, M.P. (no".' C.G.! {Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Presem: IVlrs. Sudha Agrawal, counsel forthe appeilant. Mr. AJay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent. Single Bench: -. T.P. S ,J. ORAL JUDGMENT (Passed on 18"' August, 2008) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentsnce 14-8-1992 passed by ths 5 Additional Sesslons Judgs, Dur.q, Sn Sessions Trial No.250/90, whereby & whereunder iearned Additional Sessions -Judge after holding the accused/appeliant guilty for commission of offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C., sentenced him to undergo R.i. for seven years & pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in defauit of payment offine to further undergo R.l. forthree months. 2. The jmpugned judgment is chaiienged on the ground that without any / cogent and reiiable evidence especially in the absence of eyewitness/ cireumstantiai evidence, learned Court below has convicted and sentenced the appeilant as aforementioned. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as aiso the record ofthe triai Court. 4. During the course of arguments, Mrs. Sudha Agrawai, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that she is not going to dispute conviction. Conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. She atso submits that the accused is son-in-law of injured victim Mankunwar. Mankunwar has fiied some consent letter supported by an afRdavit along with an application that she is withdrawing all the charges agalnst the appellant and the appellant be reieased. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant and the injured are mother-in-law & son-in-law and they had entered into a compromise. The apoeliant and the injured are living together. The appeltant is in detention from 8-9-88 to 23-9-88, thereafter, from 14-9-92 to 22-3-93. On the basis of the compromise, the above period of detention of the appetiant may be treated as sufflcientsentence. i. The impugned judgment is supported on behalf of the State/ respondent. 6. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appeilant is son-in-iaw of injured Mankunwar (PW-2), on the date of incident i.e. 8-9-98 she was at her house at Village Dharampura, the appeilant also came to her house and stayed at her house, she was sieeping at the Varandah of the house, at about 1 a.m. the appellant assaulted victim Mankunwar with the heip of an axe on her neck & chest, as a result of which she xbefcame unconscious. On hearing the cries of Mankunwar, Bharat Verma (PW-4) and'-her reiatives came to her house and saw that the door was closed from outside, after opening the door they entered inside the house. Injured Mankunwar was lying at Varandah, they saw injuries on her neck, throat & chest, biood was oozing out of the Injuries.. Mankunwar was unconscious at that time, when she regained consciousness, she informed that the appeliant was sleepin.a inside her house. She lodged the F.I.R. vide Ex.P-6. Disciosure statement of axe of the appellant • was recorded vide Ex.P-1.. The axe was recovered at the instance of the appeilant vide Ex.P-2. Bloodstained cot was seized vide Ex.P-3. Bloodstain soii & piain soil were seized vide Exs.P-4 & P-5. Underwear of the appellant was seized vide Ex.P- 9. Bloodstained clothes of the victim were seized vide Ex.P-10. The victim was examined by Dr. Dinesh Gupta (PW-8) who noticed nine injuries on the body of the victim, he prepared the report Ex.P-11. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed and after trial of the case, the appetlant was convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. 7. Conviction of the appeiiant is based on the following circumstances: - (i) on the date of incident the appeliant & victim Mankunwar were present in the house of Mankunwar; (ii) after incident neighbours heard the cries; (iii)when the neighbours reached to the house of Mankunwar her house was closed from outside and the appeliant was not present in the house of the victim; & (iv)the victim has specificaliy stated that he was injured by the appellant. 8. The evidence adduced by the prosecution Is sufficient to convict the aptiellant for commission of offence under Section 307 of the i.P.C. Finding of conviction dfthe triai Court is sustainabie. As regards sentence, 1 have perused the consent letter which is in the form of compromise by which the victim wants to withdraw charges against the appeiiant. It appears that both are reiatives and they had entered into a compromise. 1 MaKNBi!! Soma 9. Retiance has been Dlaced on behalf of the aDDellant in the matter of Ram Pujan & others v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1373 Cri.LJ. 1612 (V 79 C 488) = AIR 1973 SC 2418 in which it has been held that fact of compromise between accused and iniured can be taken into account in determining quantum of sentence even if offence is non-compoundable. lO.Taking into consideration the factum of compromise, the appeal is partly aiiowed. Conviction under Section 307 of the i.P.C. is maintained, however, sentence is modified to the extent that the appellant shall undergo R.t. for three years & pay a flne of Rs.500/-, in defauit of payment of fine to further undergo R.t. for three months. The appeltant shall be entitled for set off of the period already undergone by him. He shall surrender to serve out the remainlng sentence. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge