IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL COMPROMISE APPLICATION NO. 374/2009 In CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 551 of 2001 (Old No. 697/1992) Shurvir Singh & Others .…. Appellants Versus State …… Respondent April 22, 2009 Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. R.C. Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, Advocate for the informant/opposite party. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This appeal, preferred by the appellants under Section 374(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’), is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.3.1992 passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1987, State v. Shurvir Singh & Ors., whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants/accused Shurvir Singh, Sher Singh and Ghanshyam Singh under Section 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, I.P.C.) and under Section 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo five years’ R.I. under Section 325/34 I.P.C. and four months’ R.I. under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and further directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Parties have sought the permission of this Court for compounding the offence punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. Permission is granted. 2 3. A compromise application has been filed by the parties stating therein that they have entered into compromise and the dispute has amicably been settled between them outside the court. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the compromise application and other materials available on record. 5. Appellant no. 2, Sher Singh has died on 2.8.2005 and report to this effect has been submitted by the CJM, Tehri Garhwal. Hence, the appeal of Sher Singh stands abated. 6. Appellant no. 1, Shurvir Singh is the son of appellant no. 2, Sher Singh (deceased). Shurvir Singh/appellant no. 1, Ghanshyam Singh/appellant no. 3 and Ranvir Singh/informant are cousin brothers. 7. On 16.3.1987, a fight took place between the parties, in which appellants no. 1 & 2, viz., Shurvir Singh and Sher Singh (deceased) as well as informant Ranvir Singh and his father Dalip Singh suffered injuries. Dalip Singh later on succumbed to his injuries on the same day. Ranvir Singh lodged the report of this incident in the concerned police station on the next day at 2.30 PM. 8. Appellants have been convicted under Section 325/34 I.P.C. and 323/34 I.P.C. Offence under both these sections are compoundable. Section 320 of Cr.P.C. provides that under both the aforesaid Sections i.e. 325 and 323 I.P.C., the offence can be compounded by the person to whom the hurt is caused and sub- clause (b) of clause (4) of this section prescribes as under: 3 “When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is dead, the legal representative, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) of such person may, with the consent of the Court, compound such offence.” 9. Informant Ranvir Singh is son and legal heir of deceased Dalip Singh and it has been stated in the compromise application that he on his behalf as well as on behalf of his father is entitled to file the compromise. Compromise application is duly accompanied by the affidavits of appellants-Shurvir Singh and Ghanshyam Singh and informant-Ranvir Singh. 10. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal proposition (supra), compromise application is allowed. Appellants Shurvir Singh and Ghanshyam Singh are acquitted of the charges under Section 325/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. on the basis of the compromise filed by the parties and accepted by this Court. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 31.3.1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1987, State v. Shurvir Singh & Ors. is hereby set aside and sentence of five years’ R.I. under Section 325/34 I.P.C. and four months’ R.I. under Section 323/34 I.P.C. are quashed. Both appellants no. 1 & 3 are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Sureties are discharged. 11. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Let the lower court record be sent back. (Dharam Veer, J.) 22.04.2009 PRABODH