CFod6bb5%1 ISST.THE HIGH COWT OF. E'AmYA PRADESH AT. JABALE'UR. GRIME3AL, APPEAL ^O, ^SiS OB' 1©95, -^<-: ^ €TVfc. 'A^J&i,, ^s^^iX-A4^- h.. APPSLLAyT s Laxminath@Laxmi'Yadav^agedl9years. Soa of' Koduram^ resicteat of '. \' Begapara, Diirg,' District Durg,M.P » ; versus < RESFONDENT (Ihe state •of MaAya pradesh^' CRIMINAL APPSAL BtiiDER SECIIOS 37 4( 2) OB* THE CBIMINAL PROCE-DUI%B CODS_ ^"T'l '"<s^^-. ^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 928 of 1995 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Laxminath alias Laxmi Yadav State of Madhya Pradesh. R t 1 ;! Shri Ravi Bhagat counsel for the appellant. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL forthe respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CQDE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (05.01.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.6.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Durg in Sessions Trial No. 634/1993 convicting the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor ten years. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on the basis of Dehati Nalisi Ex. P-7 dated 18.6.1993 FIR Ex. P-8 was registered on that day itself. According to the case ofthe prosecution on 18.6.1993 at about 7 p.m. accused/appellant had assaulted the complainant namely Sujata (PW-1) with knife causing as many as six injuries to her. After investigation challan was filed on 28.7.1993 for the offence under Section 307 IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. "•^.'^ ^y '^.'-.•^y': \z "^ _ 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment impugned and would confine his argument to the sentence part of the same only. He submits that during the pendency of this appeal the appellant and the complainant have entered into a compromise outside the Court and also filed an application to this effect on 9.4.1996 under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Affidavits of complainant herself and that of her father are also filed in support of the fact that the matter stands compromised and the terms between them have become normal. However, the application filed under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected by this Court on 10.4.1996 on the ground that the offence alleged against the appellant is not compoundable in nature. Counsel for the appellant submits that the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties may be considered by this Court. He submits that the incident had taken place on 18.6.1993 and as with the passage of time the relations between the parties have restored to normalcy and the parties are living a peaceful and settled family life, the sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. He also expressed the willingness of the appellant to reasonably compensate the victim as per the provisions of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that even otherwise there is no evidence on record to show that the injuries sustained by the victim were grievous in nature. He also submits that while directing for compensation, the factum of his detention in jail for one year, one month and six days as well as poor financiat condition of the accused/appellant may also be given sympathetic consideration. ^^" ,^' •^^^^ —5'- L- 7. Having thus considered the fact that as the judgment impugned concerning conviction of the appellant is left unchallenged at this stage, the same is hereby maintained. However, keeping in view the fact that the appellant and the complainant have compromised the matter outside the Court though on technical ground the application to this effect under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure duly supported by the affidavits of complainant herself as also that of her father has been rejected by this Court and further that there is no evidence on record to show that the injuries caused to the victim were grievous in nature, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence imposed on the appellant to the period already undergone, by awarding some reasonable compensation to the complainant as per the provisions of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is partlyallowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained but the sentence imposed on the accused/appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000 to the victim within a period of five months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failure to pay compensation within the time stipulated shall make the appellant liable to undergo imprisonment for two years. Order accordingly. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge