S^is' BBilBIISSI!? ^ilil ilil KBII MM! I1;«ijR' !;E!i ^- liill IIIIB uws '^.;.iEP !i!!i M llliK'tMffi 'BHI CF000006123Q D-I IHE HIGH COURT OP I'-IADHYA PRADESH. AT JABALPUR .5-C^n Criminal Appeal No' -Of 199.6, Apoellant (In Jaia; ..Respondent s Bodhau,aged about 28 years, sdn of Purusho-ttam , resident of Satnarai Mohalla,Kurud,R>lice S-fcation Kurud Tahsil iSiam-tari district Raipur <MP) versus s State of Madhya Pradesh / ^/ CRIMTOAI. APPE&L UNDER SECIION 374 (2) OFCr.P.C. '. / ^ HIOM GOURT OF CMI-IATTISGARH AT BIL.ASPUR (Hon.lVlr.JuStiGSPritinKerDiwaker) CriminalAppealNo.562of1996 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Bodhau State of Madhya Pradesh E II 11III Shri Satyendra Sahu counselfor the appellant, Shri Neeraj Mehta PL forthe respondent/State. ShriAlok Dewangan counsel for the complainant. C]RIIVIINALAPPEALUNDERSECTION3740FTHEGOQEOF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGIVIENT (15.02.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.2.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.Dhamtari, in Sessions Trial No.87/1995 convicting the accused/appellaht under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine 6f Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Case ofthe prosecution in brief is that on 5.11.1994 FTREx. P-2 was lodged by Kaliram (PW-2) - brotner of the victim alleging that on that day at about 5 p.m. accused/appellant assaulted his brother Cheturam (PW-1) with knife causing asingle stabinjury on the rigtif side Of his chest. Based on this FIR.offence under Section 324 IPC was/'f-egistered against him. After investigation, ctiallan was filed By tfte'pplice on.6.12.1994 for the offences under secfions 324 and 307 of.thelndian Penal Code. t • • 3. Soas to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 08 witnesges in support of its case. Statemerit ofthe accused/appellaht was also recorded under section 313 oftheCode df Criminal Proc.edure in which he denied the charge levelled against .l-1im and pleaded, his irrnocence and false implication in the case. -z;-,. (^•r-~.^^ B°^i"^ BSf""3Nt' K.4 h^^ m- This apart, one Khelan(DW-l), has also been examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the accused/appellant of the charge under Section 307 IPC but convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. 5. Counsel fbr the accused/appellaht and Ihat fcir tt'ie complainant submit that they have filed applications under sections 320 (2) and 320 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inthose applications which are duly supported by the affidavits of the appellant and the complainant it isstated that they have compromised fhe matter outside the Court, their relationshave restored to normalcy, the incident had taken place about 16years back and that the appellant is ready to reasonably compensate the victim. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submifs that the offence under Section 3261PC for which the accused/appellant has been Gonvicted is not compoundable In nature and therefore the applications filed by the parties would not be of any help to the accused/appellant. 7. Having heardcounsel for the parties and keeping inviewthe fact that the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable in nature, according to the considered opinion of this Court, the conviction part of the impugned judgment cannot be disturbed. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 326 IPC is maintaingd. "~>k • ••'.•' . • '. " . • . 8. , As/egards sentence, bearing in mind the judgment of the Supreme-Cburt in the matter of Jetha Ram and others v.State of Rajsthan reported in (2006) 9SCC255and consideringthefactthat fhe parties have amicably setfled the matter outside the Court, relations belweeh them have become normal, iricident had taken place about 16 yearg baGk, the appellant has already remained in jail fbr about 8 mQnths and that the appellant is ready to adequately compensate the victim, this Courtis of theeonsideredopinion that no useful purpose would be sen/ed in again sending the .;is''"';^y: '1^J^;'.I: "»„ -3- ' ; ; - accused/appellant to jailand put his already settled life to peril. AGcordingly, the sentence imposed on the accused/appellant is reduced to ttie period already undergone by him.In lieu thereof, the accused/appellantis directed to deposit Rs. 4,000 before the Court below which would be payable to the victim. This ordershail come ihto force only after thisamount is deposited by the appellant. On same being done, the appellant shall be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. 9. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Pritinker Diwaker Judge J^l^-^ liei •• / Jlil 1