IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL COMPOUNIDNG APPLICATION NO. 631/2010 In CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1964 of 2001 (Old No. 385/1996) Baru & Others .…. Appellants Versus State …… Respondent June 24, 2010 Mr. Navneet Kaushik & Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Advocate for the injured/applicants. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This appeal, preferred by the appellants under Section 374(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’), is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.2.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee in Sessions Trial No. 127 of 1992, State of U.P. v. Baru & Ors., whereby the appellants Rajbeer and co-accused Leelawati have been convicted under Section 147, 452, 324/149, 325/149, 323/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and accused appellant Rajbeer has been sentenced to undergo one year RI u/s 147 IPC, six months RI u/s 323/149 IPC, one year RI u/s 324/149 IPC and two years RI u/s 325/149 IPC. However, co- accused Leelawati was released on probation of good conduct. Accused appellants Baru, Dharamveer, Satpal and Rajendra have been convicted under Section 148, 452, 324/149, 325/149, 323/149 IPC and each of them have been sentenced to undergo one year RI u/s 148 IPC, six months RI u/s 323/149 IPC, one year RI u/s 324/149 IPC and two years RI u/s 325/149 IPC. Each of the accused appellants have also been sentenced to undergo two years RI along with fine of 2 Rs. 500/- each u/s 452 IPC and in default of payment of fine, each of them have been directed to undergo six months RI. All the sentences of have been directed to run concurrently. However, each of the accused appellants and the co-accused Leelawati have been acquitted of the charge of offence punishable u/s 307/149 IPC. 2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 3.1.1992 PW3 Kiran Pal had gone to his field. Then he saw that Leelawti and Rajendra were cutting bursi in their field. He asked then not to cut the bursi but they had taken the bursi with them. On the same day, at 8 pm in the evening, the accused appellants and the co-accused Leelawati came in the house of the complainant and caused injuries to Kalu Ram (PW2), Krishan Pal (PW1), Kalyan Singh and Mahendra (PW4). With these averments, FIR Ex. Ka-1 was lodged on 4.1.1992 at 10.30 am with PS Manglore, District Haridwar. 3. On the basis of the FIR Ex. Ka-1, the chick FIR Ex. Ka-11 was prepared by Constable Clerk Ram Pal, who also made the necessary entries in the GD. Copy of GD is Ex. Ka-12. Injured Kalu Ram, Kalyan Singh, Krishan Pal and Mahendra Singh were medically examined by PW6 Dr. SP Ahuja on 3.11992 at Govt. Hospital, Roorkee. 4. Investigation of this case was entrusted to PW7 SI SS Yadav. During the course of investigation, the I.O. inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-13. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, filed the chargesheet Ex. Ka- 17 against the accused appellants and the co-accused Leelwati. 3 5. Learned JM, Roorkee after giving the necessary copies of the documents to the accused appellants and the co-accused as prescribed under Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 1.5.1992. Learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar transferred the case to Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee for its disposal according to law. 6. On 19.11.1994, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee framed the charges against the accused appellants and the co-accused. The charges were read over and explained to each of the accused appellants and the co-accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 Krishan Pal Singh; PW2 Kalu Ram; PW3 Kiran Pal, the complainant; PW4 Mahendra; PW5 Dr. Ajay Kumar, Radiologist; PW6 Dr. SP Ahuja, who medically examined the injured and PW7 SI SS Yadav, the I.O. of the case. 8. Thereafter, statements of the accused appellants and the co-accused Leelawati were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence were put to them in question form, who denied the allegations made against them and stated that they were falsely implicated in the case. However, no oral or documentary evidence was produced in defence. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee vide his judgment and order dated 26.2.1996 convicted and sentenced to the accused appellants and the co-accused as discussed above. Against the aforesaid judgment and 4 order dated 26.2.1996, the accused appellants have preferred the present appeal. 10. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the entire material available on the record. 11. Learned Counsel for the accused appellants argued that on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, no case under Section 147, 452, 324/249, 325/149 and 323/149 IPC is made out against the accused appellants and at the most, only the offence under Section 323 and 325 IPC is made out against them. 12. I find substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the accused appellants. On the basis the evidence, documentary and oral evidence produced by the prosecution, only the offence under Section 323 and 325 IPC is made out against accused appellants. 13. Parties have sought permission of this Court for compounding the offence and have accordingly filed the compounding application stating therein that they have entered into compromise and the dispute has now amicably been settled between them. Compounding application is duly supported by the affidavit of injured Krishan Pal Singh (PW1) on his own behalf and also on behalf of the rest of the injured which is also signed by the other injured persons, viz, Kalu Ram, Mahendra Singh and Kalyan Singh and the same has also been identified by learned Counsel for the injured. Affidavit of the accused appellant Baru has also been enclosed along with the said application which has also been filed on behalf of other appellants. Injured have stated in their respective affidavits that they had suffered only simple 5 injuries in the said incident. It has been further stated by the parties that now they are living peacefully and have cordial relations with each other. Therefore, learned Counsel for the parties have submitted that permission to compound the offence may be granted and the appeal may be decided in terms of the compromise. Learned Counsel for the appellants and the injured also submitted that the incident happened on 3.1.1992 and more than 19 years have elapsed thereafter and appellant Baru is more than 95 years old now and the present appeal is pending since the year 1996. Therefore, they argued that permission to compound the offence may be accorded. 14. Offence under Section 323 and 325 IPC is compoundable. Section 320(1) & 320(2) of CrPC respectively provide that under Section 323 and 325 IPC, the offence can be compounded by the person to whom the hurt is caused. 15. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal proposition, the compounding application deserves to be allowed and the appeal is liable to be decided in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Therefore, permission to compound the offence is granted. Accordingly, the compounding application is allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted and the offence under Section 323 and 325 IPC is accordingly compounded on the basis of the compromise filed by the parties and accepted by this Court. 16. Resultantly, the judgment and order dated 26.2.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee in Sessions Trial No. 127 of 1992, State of U.P. v. Baru & Ors. is hereby set aside in respect of the accused appellants only and conviction of the appellant 6 Rajbeer under Section 147, 452, 324/149, 325/149, 323/149 IPC and the appellants Baru, Dharamveer, Satpal and Rajendra under Section 148, 452, 324/149, 325/149, 323/149 IPC is herby quashed and sentence awarded to appellant Rajbeer to undergo one year RI u/ s 147 IPC, six months RI u/s 323/149 IPC, one year RI u/s 324/149 IPC, two years RI u/s 325/149 IPC and two years RI along with fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 452 IPC as well as the sentence awarded to other appellants, viz., Baru, Dharamveer, Satpal and Rajendra to undergo one year RI u/s 148 IPC, six months RI u/s 323/149 IPC, one year RI u/s 324/149 IPC, two years RI u/s 325/149 and two years RI along with fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 452 IPC is hereby also quashed. The appellants have been found guilty only for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 325 IPC. Since both the parties have entered into compromise which has been accepted by this Court and the said offence under Section 323 and 325 IPC is compounded, therefore, the accused appellants are acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 323 and 325 IPC. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They need not surrender unless required in any other case. 17. Let the lower court record be sent back. PRABODH (Dharam Veer, J.) 24.6.2010