For Appellant : Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu and Mr. Syed
Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate
For State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction
Judge, Raigarh, District-Raigarh in S.T. No.7 of 2024 whereby
Digitally appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and
signed by
PRAVEEN
KUMAR
SINHA sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.8,000/-, in default
Date:
2025.09.19
14:46:47
+0530 of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 1 year.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19/08/2023 at about 03.00
pm, when Pratap Yadav was chasing away, the cattle from pond's
embankment, Deepak, son of Rajaram Sarthi (present appellant)
started fighting with Pratap Yadav, saying why are you chasing away
the cattle. Seeing this, Rajmilan Yadav father of Pratap Yadav told
Deepak that even though he is elder, he is fighting and beating the
child, upon which, Deepak Sarthi went to his father Rajaram Sarthi
(present appellant) and told about the incident. Thereafter, appellant
came with an axe in his hands, hurling filthy, threatened Rajmilan to kill
him and with intention of killing, assaulted Rajmilan Yadav on the head.
Rajmilan bow-down to one side but suffered injury. Wife of injured
Rajmilan Yadav lodged a report of the incident to concerned police
station upon which First Information Report was registered against the
accused/appellant bearing Crime No. 210/2023 under Section 307 IPC.
Injured was medically examined. Spot map of the crime scene was
prepared. Injured's blood-stained T-shirt was seized. Blood-stained and
plain soil was also seized from the crime scene. Memorandum
statement of the accused was recorded. On production by the accused,
one axe was seized. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.
Seized articles were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory,
Bilaspur for its chemical examination through the Superintendent of
Police. After completing the investigation, charge sheet under Section
307 of IPC was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Raigarh from where case was remitted to Court of Sessions Judge,
Raigarh for trial.
3. On being charged under Section 307 IPC, accused denied the charge
and demanded trial. His statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was
recorded in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him
and pleaded innocence.
4. In order to prove the charge against appellant, prosecution examined
10 witnesses. No defence witness was examined by the
accused/appellant in his defence.
5. Learned trial Court after due consideration of oral and documentary
evidence available on record has convicted and sentenced the
appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment.
6. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
during pendency of this appeal an application under Section 359 (5) of
the BNSS for permission to compound the offence has been jointly filed
by wife of appellant - Tulsi Sarthi and complaint Rajmilan Yadav on the
ground that both parties have arrived at amicable settlement and now
complaint is having harmonious relationship with appellant and his
family members and therefore complainant does not want to any further
proceedings against appellant. A deed of settlement was also executed
between the parties on the intervention of the Panchayat in presence of
witnesses, wherein both the parties were agreed for compromise and
have also decided to live with peace in future with each other, copy of
which is filed as Annexure A-3. He submits in view of above fact, period
of sentence imposed upon the appellant be reduced and he may be
sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
7. Learned State counsel, on the other hand supported the impugned
judgment and submits that offence under Section 307 IPC is not
compoundable, therefore the compromise between the parties cannot
be entertained at this stage and the appeal be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of trial
Court and also statement of victim/complainant recorded before the
Additional Registrar (Judicial) on 22.08.2025.
9. In the case hand, appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years. During pendency of this
appeal, it was brought to notice of this Court that an amicable
settlement has been arrived at between the complainant and appellant
to the effect that complainant in change of circumstances have
amicably settled the differences, he is having cordial relation with the
family of appellant. Vide order dated 22.08.2025, this Court directed
victim/complainant to appear before the Additional Registrar (Judicial)
for recording statement of parties with respect to entering into a
comprise. Pursuant to order passed by this Court on the same day,
claimant- Rajmilan Yadav appeared before Additional Registrar
(Judicial) and his statement was recorded. In his statement, he clearly
stated that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between him
and appellant on his own free will, without any coercion or inducement
and that now he does not want any further proceeding against
appellant/accused.
10. Though the appellant was charged for the offence punishable under
Section 307 of IPC which is a serious offence, at the same time, it
cannot be ignored that parties are resident of same village, they have
amicably settled the matter. It can be apprehended that if the dispute is
allowed to linger on between them, it would disturb their harmonious
relationship and may become the cause of further rift.
11. From the case as projected by the parties during trial it is reflecting that
accused-appellant is a villager and a labourer. He is first offender
having no criminal antecedent. He has undergone incarceration of
almost more than 4 months. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, continuation of a prolonged sentence would not serve any
greater purpose of justice.
12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of case, particularly the
amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, deed of settlement
executed between them with the intervention of the Panchayat on
10.08.2025 (Annexure A-3), considering that appellant is first offender
and already undergone jail sentence of more than 4 months, while
maintaining conviction of appellant under Section 307 of IPC, I am
inclined to reduce the jail sentence awarded to appellant to the period
already undergone by him. The fine amount and the default stipulation
shall remain as it is.
13. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that fine amount
has already been deposited by the appellant.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Instead of RI for 10 years,
appellant is now sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
Appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any
other case.
15. Copy of the order shall be forwarded to the concerned trial Court as
also to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and
necessary action.
Sd/----/-/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
