BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR CMMINAL REVISION N0. ->^ .'J 12002 >^ .^ tr gp^^ !^- /•'* / f^^/ '^ ^/ •'.V •" ^; ^t .^; ,.;: '•'1 tt; A., 1) Govind satnami, aged about 42 years, 2) Ashok alias Munna aged about 28 years, 3) Gopal, aged about 32 years, All sons of Late Fandi Satnanii, cultivators, resident of village Uslapur, P. S.Ss Tah Bemetara, Dist. Durg (Chhattisgarh) APPLICANTS (ACCUSED PERSONS) VERS US State of Chhattisgarh Through : Police Station Beraetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). RESPONDENT ( ^'. ,fi;e" ft CONVICTION U/S. 323 & 324 r/w Sec. 34 ofI.P.C. SENTENCE 03 Morrffis R.I. and fine ofRs. 200/- for each offence. In default 15 daysofS.I. !\ ^1" CRIMINAL REVISION _UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 40t-OP THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND- SENTENCE PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE N0. 24/2001 DATED 28/2/2002 BY SHRI R. RIGRI, MAGISTRATE SECOND CLASS, BEMETARA CONVLCTING EVERY ACCUSED_APPLICA.NT UNDER SECTIN 323-734 AND 324/34 OF THE IPC AWARDING THREEJ4PNTHS R.I. EACH TO -^^RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH A FIN.-; IN THE SUM OF RS_200/^ g^J^'EACH ON EVERY COUNT AND-THIS-JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE HAVING_BEEN_CONFIRMED ENTIRELY IN PIRST CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. 138/2002-^THE APPLICANTS fACCUSED) RESPECTFULLY ^EG _ TO LAY THIS HUMBLE PETITION OF REVISION ON THE BACKDROP OP FOLLOWING FACTS AND GROUNDS: "/-^ FACTS opnm-CAss- -^'^iy1' S^swswswssse APPLICANTS RESg'SjNDENT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Revision No.503 of 2002 Govind Satnami and others VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Shri Arvind Dubey counsel for the applicants. Shri Ravindra Agrawal PL for respondent/State. Applicants - Govind Satnami, Ashok alias Munna and Gopal and also the complainant Thanwar are present before this Court. They are identified by ShriArvind Dubey, Advocate. CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397/401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (30.06.2010) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.19.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, -Durg in Criminal Appeal No. 138/2002 bywhich the judgment dated 28.2.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Bemetara convicting the accused/applicant Govind u/s 323, 323/34 and 324 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 200 u/s 323 and 323/34 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months u/s 324 IPC, in default further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days; accused/applicants Ashok and Gopal u/s 323 and 323/34 and 324/34 IPC and sentencing them to pay fine of Rs. 200 u/s 323 and 323/34 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months u/s 324/34 IPC, in default further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, has been modified and the accused/applicants have been convicted u/s 324/34, 323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200 for each offence plus default stipulations. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that on 4.2.1998 the accused/applicants had assaulted one Thanwar causing him \?arious injuries with the help of battle axe and club. 4. So as to hold the accused/applicants guilty, prosecution has examined 06 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the :.-<' J lsla^,. 1 ^ .: ;EH %s ss - 2-— accused/applicants were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. Vide judgment dated 28.2.2002 in Criminal Case No. 24/2001 the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/applicants as detailed above which in revision has been modified by the revisional Court as above. :1 5. Counsel for the applicants has filed IA No. 2 u/s 320 (2) and IA No. 3 u/s 320 (6) seeking permission ofthis Court to compound the offence. Both these apptications are duly supported by the affidavits of the parties. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants named above and the complainant/victim have settled their disputes outside the Court and thus they want to compromise the matter. He submits that they are relatives and by lapse of time their relations have returned to normalcy. In this view of the matter, applications (IA No.2 and IA No.3) are allowed and the compromise as prayed for by the parties is hereby permitted. Needless to say, that this compromise would-have the effect of. acqu'; tal of the applicants named above of the offences described above. Order accordingly. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker ^. ;^^^-j'' •" i3£^-'-.". '>u< M