3. cr aapeal 102-08.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2008 Popat @ Gotya Vinayak Garud .. Appellant Vs The State of Mahrashtra & Anr .. Respondents Mr. Rajiv Patil for the Appellant Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal for Respondent No. 2 Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 27th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. The appellant-original accused has challenged the judgment and order dated 31st January 2008 in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-11, Pune. By the said judgment and order, the appellant came to be convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and he came to be sentenced to RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- i/d RI for 15 days. 2 The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: The informant PW 1 Ramdas Garud and the accused are closely related. On 13.02.2006 on account of road dispute, there was quarrel between the accused and Vitthal who is the 1 3. cr aapeal 102-08.doc cousin of Ramdas. Abuses were exchanged. When PW 1 Ramdas tried to intervene, the accused threatened Ramdas. The incident in question occurred in the morning on 16.02.2006. According to the complainant, the accused came to his house and threatened him to withdraw the complaint. Thereafter, when Ramdas was standing on the road along with Kishore, he heard noise from the backside and noticed that one truck was approaching in high speed in their direction. At that time, Ramdas pushed Kishore to one side and he himself jumped to the other side from his bike to save himself. The truck ran over the bike of PW 1 Ramdas and dashed against one tree. The accused was driving the said truck. Hence, FIR came to be lodged. 3 Charge under section 307 came to be framed against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and imposed the sentence on the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4 I have heard the learned advocate for the appellant- original accused, the learned advocate for respondent no. 2- 2 3. cr aapeal 102-08.doc original complainant and the learned APP for the State. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as evidence produced by the parties. 5. The learned advocate for the complainant stated that the matter has been amicably settled and the accused be acquitted on account of the compromise. Affidavit of Ramdas Narayan Garud has been filed to that effect. The said affidavit is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. He has further stated that the accused and the complainant are closely related and due to intervention of the senior members of the family and other respectable persons, the complainant is of the opinion that there should be harmony between both families by putting an end to the dispute. Hence, he has prayed that conviction of the appellant be set aside and the appellant be acquitted. 6 However, it is seen that the appellant- accused has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC which is a non- compoundable offence, hence, I cannot acquit him on the basis of the said compromise. However, useful reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Salim and others Vs. State of M.P. reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC Page 631, wherein similar facts arose. In the said 3 3. cr aapeal 102-08.doc case, the appellants were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Apex Court has observed thus: . "We cannot acquit the accused persons on the basis of compromise. However, as held by this Court in Ram Pujan and other Vs. State of U.P. the fact that they have compromised the matter and have patched up their differences and the fact that since then they have been living together happily, has relevance so far as the question of sentence is concerned". 7 So also in the case of Sanjit Datta Vs. State of Tripura and another; (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 172, the parties had prayed for compounding of the offence under Section 457 of IPC. The Supreme Court observed that Section 457 of IPC is non- compoundable, however, if the offence is non-compoundable, while awarding sentence, the Court can take into consideration the effect of compounding. Hence, in the said case, the period of imprisonment was reduced to three months which was the period already undergone by the accused. 8 The ratio of the above judgments squarely applies to the present case. Looking to the above facts, I am inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant. Hence, the following order: 4 3. cr aapeal 102-08.doc O R D E R 1. In the result, the judgment and order of conviction under Section 307 of IPC passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-11, Pune in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2007 is confirmed. However, the sentence imposed on the appellant i.e. RI for five years is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant. The fine amount of Rs.500/- and default sentence is maintained. 2. Appellant be released forthwith if find amount is paid and if not required in any other case. 3. Appeal is partly allowed. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 5 3. cr aapeal 102-08.doc 6