/-/f/1- f^ HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.455 of 2002 PETITIONER: (In Jail) Versus RESPONDENT: Ashok Kumar S/o Balram Lodhi aged about 25 years R/o Madham Tahsil/P.S. Kota Distt. Bilaspur State of Chhattisgarh. (Criminal revision under Section 397 read with 401 ofCriminal Procedure Cod.e1973) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J) Present: Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, counsel for the applicant. Mr. Pradeep Singh, Pa.nel Lawyer for the State. Applicant Ashok Kumar and complainant/injured Dharmendra Kumar Singraul are also present. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 5-4-2011) 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision challenging the judgment dated 27-8-2002 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Criminal Appeal No.59/2002, affirming the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 25-2-2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.415/2001, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has convicted the applicant under Sections 458 & 324 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rl for one year & pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rl for three months and to undergo Rl for nine months & pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rl for three months, respectively. 2. Report of the Registry perused. 3. Complainant Dharmendra Kumar Singraul has entered into compromise with the present applicant. Report of the Registry reveals that they have entered into the compromise voluntarily. 4. The applicant and the complainant have filed application for compromise and same has been verified by the Registry. The applicant has been ^ ^' "^ % convicted under Sections 458 & 324 of the IPC vide judgment dated 25- 2-2002, at that time, offence under Section 324 of the IPC was compoundable, though at present same is not compoundable. But we are required to consider the case for compromise at the time of passing judgment by the trial Court. Consequently, permission is granted and as a result of compromise the applicant is acquitted of the charge under Section 324ofthe IPC. 5. As regards conviction of the applicant under Section 458 of the IPC, 1 have perused documentary and oral evidence. As per case of the prosecution, the applicant was knocking the door from outside and the incident took place from outside of the house. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that the applicant has caused injury inside the house during lurking house-trespass or house-breaking. Therefore, conviction & sentences imposed upon the applicant under Section 458 ofthe IPC are not sustainable under the law. 6. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The applicant is acquitted of the charge under Sections 324 & 458 of the IPC. Fine deposited by the applicant be refunded to him. 7. I.A.Nos.1 & 2 stand disposed of. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge