Allahabad High Court
Gokaran Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. on 2 May, 2024
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:79325
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1948 of 1993
Appellant :- Gokaran Singh And Others
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Veer Singh,Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.,Pavan Kumar
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with a prayer to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court and acquit the appellants and further prayed that realisation of fine of Rs. 500/- each of the appellants may be stayed during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal.
It is submitted that in this case the appellants namely Gokaran Singh, Surendra Kumar and Virendra Kumar were convicted and sentenced under Section 325, 323 I.P.C. It is also submitted that under Section 323 I.P.C. they were punished with fine Rs. 500/- and under Section 325 I.P.C. with four years rigorous imprisonment and with fine Rs. 500/-. It is further submitted that the parties have entered into compromise which has been verified on 21.08.2023 by the learned trial court copy of which is on record, therefore, this appeal be decided in terms of compromise and appellants be acquitted. It is also submitted that appellant namely Baburam was convicted and sentenced under Section 324 I.P.C. for a period of two years rigorous imprisonment and in terms of compromise he also be acquitted of the charge.
Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard but it is pointed out by learned A.G.A. that offences under Section 323, 325 I.P.C. are compoundable and offence under section 324 I.P.C. is non-compoundable, therefore, in terms of compromise appellant Baburam cannot be acquitted.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A., material on record, compromise as verified by the learned trial court between the parties, it is in the interest of justice to decide this appeal in terms of compromise. Since appellants Gokaran Singh, Surendra Kumar and Virendra Kumar were convicted and sentence under Section 325, 323 I.P.C. those are compoundable in the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., therefore, their appeal is decided in terms of compromise as entered into between the parties and verified by the learned trial court.
Accordingly, to the extent of appellants Gokaran Singh, Surendra Kumar and Virendra Kumar this appeal is allowed and they are acquitted of the charges of Section 323, 325 I.P.C.
So far as the appeal of Baburam is concerned, the conviction and sentence under Section 324 I.P.C. being not compoundable under the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., he cannot be given benefit of compromise between the parties and cannot be acquitted of the charge in terms of compromise but it is in the interest of justice to modify his sentence into fine.
As a result, the sentence of two years imprisonment against the appellant Baburam is modified to the extent of fine amounting to Rs. 1,000/-
Accordingly, this appeal for Baburam is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 2.5.2024
Suraj Srivastav
