Single Btnch (CrimiNll|| ii1'1? SK" fflfv,-' ^^w^ w^ ^- M THE EIGH COiJRT OF MAOHX& HtADSSH AI J-ABALP®. GBB.II&AL JiK'EAL N0. '"/ OF 1992. APPSI.l^SES 'QESI l.ilMi'fchallalson of A'cup. . ;e'd about 55 years y y 2. Haagloo aoo of Mithsilal, sged sbout; 4o years. y ^ 3. Zhanglu SOD of Mitiiailsl,. aged about 30 years, . /' / 1+. Khelu alias Mohardas soa of Raansth aged sbput; 45'years, All the above named appelleats sre resideat oS •ffillags panda Psrpwani, police Ststa/'on Khsrora, Tahsll an<3 district BAIPUB (M.P.). •BiiBSLS. SiE SSMSS 0~y MAffliXA PBAEBSH. SKMLJSP^ SEWIOS^ 374<2.J__0^_ 'EHE_^ffB_OF OUMINAL PKOGtiBURE. . B: : S.^":;ti>ffilH ti.lb.iti.i«a»fe»uB WiS RIA Kff •..iN »" .-.ffa ^ev^ p'- HICfflI COURT OI? CHHATnSOARH AT BILftMnjR 8B : HOirBLE MR. JU8TICB PRITntKBR DIWAKBR CRA.NO. 481/1992 APPBLLAWT8 . Mithailal & Others versus RB8PONDBNT State of OtihattisgaA Sbri Anuya Kant Tiwari, coiinscl for fhe appsSQaat. Shri C.R.Sahu, counsd for fhe complauaant Shri Vivek Sfaaniia, P.L. for the St^e. APPUCATION U/8 378(21 OP THE CR.P.C. JODGMENT (l9-01-20l0| The present appeal is directed ayassat ffae impngned judgment dated 8.4.92 passed by the Sccond Additional Sessions Judge, Raipiu- in Sessions Tnat No.70/88 convicting fhc appcUants/accused fw fhe oflfenccs punishable under Scctions 308 & 323 of the Indjaa Penal Code and sentenced to undei^o RI for one y^a- aad Rl for fhree inonths, respectively. 2. The prosecutioa story in nutehell is ftat on fhe lasis of nynamcha. entty dated 3.12.87 Ex.P/l3,FIR dated 12.12.^7 Ex.P/14 was regustered ^ainst thc accuaed pcrsbns. It is alleged that on 2.12.87 ia the paachayat mecting of -vSlay Pandaparpwani there was some disptate bctween two groups aad it is aUegcd ftiat the accuscd pcrsons have assaulted thc complainant Sant Raai, Dandu, Santu & Reaham. Bal as a resiilt ofwhich thcy sustained ugunes. /i^"' .||; ^l^^^^r;,, ;" '!1»», :-i- 3. In support of its case, thc prosecution has ciBBixuned as many as ten witaesscs. Two defence witnes^is have alao been esMtained- Stateaient of Ifae accused wcre ateo recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which ftiey denied the chai^cs levelcd against them aud pleaded uinocencc and false iinplication iu fhe case. 4. By thc impiigncd judgment, fte Court betow havc coavicted four accused pcrsons fer tfae offences as afoFeiaentK)ned. Hence this appeal. 5. During pendency of fhe paesent appcal appeUant No. 1 has cxpired aad fhcreforc fhe presnit appeal coafiaes to appeUaats No. 2, 3 & 4. 6. It has been argued by Shri Tiwari, counsel for ttie appeBaate ftiat tfae appeBant No.2 Iiavc already remaincd m jail for xnorc fhan oae year and one m.onfh whcre^ appeUaats No. 3 & 4 have also remMned in Jafl for atxxit six months aad therefore he is not cIiaUcnging Ifae conviclion part of the unpugned judgment aad the appeBaate be rele^scd oa fhe basis of fhe seatence alceady un<teigon:e by fheiu. He further submlts fhat during pcadeacy <rf the appeal, the appeBaats aad fhe coiaplaanaatt party Imve entered into coaaprotnlse aad a joiut appMcatlan dated 29.07.2009 has been fited as I.A. No. 01/2009 under Section 320(5) Cr.P.C. to fhis efiTect 7. The application 'baa beea duty supported by ttee afiBdavits ofthe.garties.It is stated that henceferth fhqr wffl not have any dispute bet«ycenfhem as fhcy ha»evohuitarity | /! sctded fheir dispute outsidc the Conrt wiUiout any presszire * fironi anyone. /' 8.. Sbri Sahu, counsel for tiae. eomplaioaat also subanits fhat fhe parties have compiomised fhe matter. .-5?^''i?2^.-- .-!&. "•^ "v'^'^. 9. In view of the above fact, fhe State counsel does not opposes fhe appUcation if fhe saiae 1s decided toy upltolding the conviction part Aad on the basis of setttence already uadeigoneby theia. 10. Lookiag to fhe fact that the ofifeuce undcr Section 308 of the Indiaa Penal Code, fer which ihe appeUants hawe been convicted is non conipouxidable ia naturc aad tticrefore even if fhey have entered ta.to compronuise, compounding of the offence cannot be perBaitted. Howcvcr as ffae appeBant No. 2 has already remamed ia jaal &r mase than onc year whereas appeUants N0. 3 & 4 have remained ia jail for about six inonfhs, in the interest ofjustice, ffaey caa be sentenced to thc period atoeady iiadei^one by theca. 11. Thus ia the facts aad cuciuastances of fhe ease, keeping in view that fhe uicidcnt had taten place ia fhe year 1987 and thereby more fhaa 22 years have roUed by sinoc theu, tfae conviction part of fhe judgment impugaed is hereby mamtained. However, thc appellants are senteaced to the period already undeigone by tfaeai. 12. Appeal is ftius parfly atlcwed. Pritinker Diwaker Judge