Madan Bharti vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3052 Jhar

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

                          Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 359 of 2010

(Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence both dated 31.03.2010, passed
by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Daltonganj, Palamau, in
Sessions Trial No. 6 of 2007)
                                 ------

1. Madan Bharti, son of Late Rupam Nandan Bharti

2. Mahendra Bharti, son of Late Rupam Nandan Bharti

3. Mandip Bharti, son of Mahendra Bharti

4. Premchand Bharti, son of Rajendra Bharti

5. Upendra Bharti, son of Daroga Bharti

6. Ramrekha Bharti, son of Late Kameshwar Bharti

7. Naina Bharti, son of Suba Bharti

8. Janesh Bharti, son of Asharfi Bharti

9. Sudama Bharti, son of Malev Bharti 10 Sarwan Bharti @ Sarwan Kumar Bharti, son of Hari Bharti

11. Radheshyam Bharti, son of Tikait Bharti 12 Rakesh Bharti, son of Bechan Bharti All residents of village-Dulhi, PO -Katual, PS -Chainpur, District-Palamau.

                                                           ... ... Appellants
                                         Versus
The State of Jharkhand                                      ... .... Respondent

                                                                        (Through V.C.)
                                        -------
                                       PRESENT
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
                                   -------
  For the Appellants : Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Advocate
                       Mr. Naiyer Eqbal, Advocate
  For the State      : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
                                   -------

C.A.V. on: 16/11/2021                                  Pronounced on:05/08/2022

Heard Mr. Rajiv Kumar and Mr. Naiyer Eqbal, the learned counsels for the appellants and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned counsel for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence both dated 31.03.2010, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,FTC-III, Daltonganj, Palamau, in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, the appellants were convicted for the offence under Sections 148, 323/149, 326/149 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned trial court compounded the offence under sections 323/149 and 504 of IPC and did not impose any sentence under these sections. The appellants were sentenced for one year under Section 148 of the 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 359 of 2010

Indian Penal Code and RI for three years under Section 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code and both these sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as per the fardbeyan dated 27.05.2006 of the informant PW-5 Kedar Nath Bharti, recorded by A.S.I. Bhim Mahto at 16:00 hours, at Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj on 27.05.2006 is that on 26.05.2006 at about 7:30 pm, his villager Videshi Paswan was coming through the path near the house of Yugal Bharti. Then appellant Madan Bharti stopped him and told him sala-Paswan, why he use this path and began to say filthy language. Videshi Paswan forbade him saying filthy language, then, Madan Bharti attacked him on his head with an axe causing injury near his head and mouth and blood oozed out. On halla, Premchand Bharti, Mahendra Bharti, Sandeep Bharti, Janesh Bharti, Nayan Bharti, Radhe Shyam Bharti, Sudama Bharti, Ramrekha Bharti, Rameshwar Bharti, Upendra Bharti, Rakesh Bharti and Shrawan Bharti, came there armed with lathi and began to say filthy language. In the meantime informant Kedar Bharti reached there, then, Rameshwar Bharti attacked him with lathi which hit on his head and blood oozed out. When Dharmendra Bharti, Shashi Bharti, Nandlal Bharti and Manoj Bharti came to rescue him, then the accused persons assaulted them indiscriminately with lathi, as a result, all were seriously injured.

4. On the basis of statement of the informant, FIR being Chainpur P.S. Case No. 72 of 2006 dated 27.05.2006 was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 504 of IPC against the appellants. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offences were taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the appellants under section 148, 324/149,307/149 and 504 of IPC and trial was held. At the conclusion of trial, appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, hence, this appeal.

5. Prosecution had examined altogether 15 witnesses out of whom PW- 5 is Kedar Nath Bharti, who is the informant of the case and he was declared hostile; PW-1 is Nandlal Bharti; PW-2 is Shashi Bharti; PW-3 is Dr. Satish Kumar; PW-4 is Videshi Paswan and PW-15 is a formal witness, who had proved the fardbeyan and formal FIR which were marked as Ext.-4 and Ext.-5 respectively. PW-7, PW-12 and PW-13 did not give any information about the prosecution case and PW-6, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-11 and PW-14 were declared hostile.

3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 359 of 2010

6. PW-5 Kedarnath Bharti, is the informant of the case and he was declared hostile. Informant had stated in his evidence that he went at the place of occurrence on hearing halla. At the place of occurrence, he saw that peoples were assaulting Videshi Paswan and when he tried to save him then someone hit him from behind, as a result, he became unconscious. Informant further stated that Vibhuti Bharti, Madan Bharti and their family members were the assillants and Shashi Bharti, Dharmendra Bharti, Nandlal Bharti and Manoj Bharti had sustained injuries. Informant further stated that he was assaulted by lathi. All the injured persons were treated at Sadar Hospital. Informant had proved the signature of Manoj Bharti, as a witness to fardbeyan and signature of said Manoj Bharti was marked as Ext.-3.

7. PW-1 is Nandlal Bharti. PW-1 had stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence Videshi Paswan was returning after completing his work and when he reached near the house of Jugal Bharti, he saw Madan Bharti saying filthy words to Videshi Paswan and was saying not to go from this path. PW-1 further stated that Madan Bharti attacked Videshi Paswan with an axe, which hit on his mouth and his tooth was broken and he also sustained injury on his head. Rameshwar Bharti attacked Kedar Bharti on his head by lathi, Ramrekha Bharti and Rameshwar Bharti assaulted him with lathi on his back and Mahendra Bharti also assaulted him. Mahendra Bharti assaulted his son Dharmendra Bharti and Srikant was assaulted by Madan Bharti. PW-1 further stated that 13 accused persons were involved in the assault. Videshi Paswan had given evidence against Ramnandan Bharti and due to this grudge, occurrence of assault took place. PW-1 further stated in para- 6 of his deposition that the land on which assault took place is a path and is still in use. PW-1 further stated that Kedar Bharti had sustained injuries at two places, Videshi Paswan at three places, Dharmendra at one place by lathi on his head, Shashikant at one place by lathi on his head and he himself sustained injuries at two places on his head by assault with lathi. PW-1 further stated that accused persons had also lodged a case against them.

8. PW2 is Shashi Bharti. PW-2 had stated in his evidence that on hearing halla, he reached at the place of occurrence and saw Madan Bharti was assaulting Videshi Paswan with an axe due to which Videshi Paswan sustained injuries on his mouth, lips and head. In the meantime on hearing halla, Nandlal Bharti, Kedar Nath Bharti, Dharmendra Bharti, Manoj Bharti 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 359 of 2010

and Ramrekha Bharti also came there. Madan Bharti was armed with an axe and the others were armed with lathi. Rameshwar Bharti assaulted Kedar Bharti with lathi and other persons also assaulted him. When he asked reason for assault then Shrawan Bharti, assaulted him on his head with lathi. PW-2 further stated that accused persons had dispute with Ramdeo Paswan, the brother of Videshi Paswan and due to this reason, this occurrence took place.

9. PW4 is Videshi Paswan. PW-4 had stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence, he was returning after completing his daily work in brick kiln and when he reached near the door of Madan, then, Madan Bharti said to him 'sala', is it a road that you are going from this direction and began to say filthy words and when he forbade him from saying filthy words, then he assaulted him with an axe on his head and chin as a result he sustained injury on his head. On halla Nandlal Bharti and Kedar Bharti came, then both the parties started quarrelling as a result someone sustained head injury and some others also sustained injuries. Nandlal had sustained head injuries by lathi, but, he did not know who had assaulted Nandlal. In his cross-examination PW-4 stated that he had no knowledge about the matter over which the dispute between both sides took place.

10. PW14 is Dharmendra Bharti and he is a hostile witness. PW-14 had stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence at about 7-7:30 O'clock in the evening, he saw that Videshi Paswan was being assaulted but he was unable to see due to darkness that who were assaulting him and with which object. When he went there to intervene then he had also sustained injury, but, unable to see who had assaulted him.

11. PW3 is Dr. Satish Kumar, who had examined the injured persons. PW-3 had stated in his evidence that on 26.05.2006, he was posted at Sadar Hospital. On examination of PW-5 Kedar Nath Bharti, doctor had found lacerated injury measuring 2" x 1/2" muscle deep on the left parietal scalp caused by

hard and blunt substance which was simple in nature. Doctor on examination of PW-4 Videshi Paswan had found three incised injuries on the person of Videshi Paswan- (1) incised wound measuring 3''x1'' on the upper lip cutting the maxillary bone (ii) incised wound measuring 4''x2'' cutting the lower lip and jaw bone upto the chin and (iii) incised wound measuring 4''x2'' bone deep posterior parietal scalp transversally placed. Doctor opined that injuries sustained by PW-4 Videshi

Paswan were caused by sharp cutting weapon and were grievous in nature. On examination of PW-14 Dharmendra Bharti, doctor found lacerated wound on 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 359 of 2010

parietal scalp 3" x 1" bone deep caused by hard and blunt substance and opinion

as to nature of injury was kept pending. On examination of PW-2 Shashi Bharti, doctor had found- lacerated wound measuring 3"x 1" bone deep on the left parietal scalp caused by hard and blunt substance and opined that injury was

simple in nature. On examination of PW-1 Nandlal Bharti, doctor found two injuries on his person- (i) Lacerated wound 4" x 1" bone deep on the anterior parietal scalp. (ii) Lacerated wound 4"x 1" bone posterior parietal scalp. Doctor opined that

injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and were simple in nature.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

12. Mr. Rajiv Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants has, first and foremost, argued that the place of occurrence is disputed, so, it will be difficult to arrive at where the occurrence took place and, therefore, much doubt is raised. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that in the First Information Report, it is said that PW-4 Videshi Pawan was near Jugal Bharti's house while in his evidence Videshi Paswan, who is one of the injured, has deposed that occurrence took place when he reached at the door of Madan Bharti. So, when two places were given as the place of occurrence, it raises certain doubts and when the Investigating Officer is not examined and not even a sketch map is apparently available the place of occurrence is not proved.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that in this case the informant PW5 Kedar Nath Bharti was turned hostile. Now, when the informant himself has been declared hostile then can his allegations stated in the fardbeyan or in the First Information Report be believed at all.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants then argued that PW3 Dr. Satish Kumar Singh, had examined 4-5 injured persons and when one looks at the injury of the injured persons, most of the injuries appear to be simple in nature and the simple nature of injuries itself demonstrate then that there was a lack of intention to commit serious injuries and thus would not fall under the purview of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code at all. Even the injuries of PW-4 Videshi Paswan, which are three in number, will not come under any category of Section 320 of the Indian penal Code. Learned counsel then points out that if hurts do not fit into any of the aforesaid category of injuries under section 320 IPC then how can the injury be said to be grievous in nature. He has also argued that there is no reference to any fracture of bone in 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 359 of 2010

the injury report or in the evidence of the doctor PW3. Further, one of the injured examined was Manoj Bharti and the doctor who had examined him, was one Dr. Mohan Prasad and the said Dr. Mohan Prasad has not been examined.

15. Learned counsel for the appellants has then argued that for Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code to be fulfilled, it is necessary that Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code be also fulfilled. Learned counsel argued that in Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code apart from there being five of the persons to be designated as unlawful assembly, it is necessary that there is a "common object" of the unlawful assembly and the unlawful assembly must over show off criminal force. Learned counsel has also submitted that what was the common object, who did the accused persons intend to attack, how many persons did intend to attack and the right of way is not contested. The incidents is between related peoples (gotias) and takes place for an object and in such circumstances, whether common object can be attributed to the accused is a question that arises and hence, Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be made out. Both the parties had compromised and they did not want to fight and in the impugned judgment also learned trial court had noted about compromise between both the parties. Learned counsel also argues that some amongst them have been by-standers so how can this Court hold them responsible for action under Section 149 read along with other sections of the Indian Penal Code. It is not even clear whether accused wanted to assault Videshi Paswan or not. Learned counsel has further argued that similarly for the offence of Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, which also requires there being an unlawful assembly and that it must result in rioting with deadly weapons, whether there was an unlawful assembly with the premeditated mindset and whether all of them behaved in a manner akin to rioting because as already said that many of them were by-standers and that the path-way or right of way was not disputed at all.

16. Another argument that has been put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants is that as per the evidence of the informant, Videshi Paswan (PW4) was assaulted by three persons, however, in the evidence of PW1 Nandlal Bharti, he has not supported the version of informant. Learned counsel says that this version of event is also not supported by PW4 Videshi Paswan himself. Now, Videshi Paswan is the one who has allegedly been 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 359 of 2010

grievously injured and when he himself is not supporting the evidence of others in the Court and there is variation in the evidence of informant and PW-1, then, definitely as to who are the assailants on Videshi Paswan is not determined and it definitely cannot be attributed also to Madan Bharti.

17. Regarding one of the appellant Naina Bharti, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that he is an old man and at the time of judgment he was of 62 years of age and at present he would be of 73 years of age. So, the Hon'ble Court may consider his age while deciding this appeal. Learned counsel has further argued that in any way, the parties have settled and compromised their dispute between themselves and this has come out in the evidence of various persons. Further, a joint compromise petition was filed before the learned trial court and in the impugned judgment also, learned trial court had noted about compromise between both the parties, who are gotias and, therefore, it is a fit case for the Hon'ble Court to recognize the settlement and compromise. It is also within the power of the Court, on the basis of other judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court to even consider the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code even if it is not a compoundable section.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE

18. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned APP has, on the other hand, argued that the incident cannot be denied though the question of place of occurrence being doubtful. It is admitted that there is a case and a counter case and in such admission, the question of place of occurrence will not be necessary. Even if Investigating Officer was not examined, but, there are enough witnesses to prove the case of assaults and injuries. Learned APP has also specifically argued that it has come by ample evidence that one of the assailant and the appellant herein Madan Bharti had caused specific injuries to Videshi Paswan. It has come in the evidence of PW1 and PW5 that Madan Bharti had assaulted Videsh Paswan with tangi and in the doctor's report it is reflected as three injuries. Accordingly, with the listing of the aforesaid injuries, it is clear that the assault caused by Madan Bharti with tangi had resulted in injuries which were caused by sharp cutting weapon and also grievous in nature and, therefore, the offence under Section 326/ 149 is fully made out.

8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 359 of 2010

19. Learned APP has then argued that it is sought to be demonstrated that the injuries were not of a serious nature and it was simple in nature and do not come under the purview of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code and also that in the injuries sustained by Videshi Paswan, there is no fractured bone. Learned APP says that in the injury report of Videshi Paswan, teeth have been shown as broken, which can be considered grievous.

20. Learned APP has also argued that the convictions have also been done under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and conviction under Section 326 the convictions have been done with the assistance of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned APP has further argued that accused were more than five in numbers and the convictions have also resulted for more than five persons.There was a dispute over land or path which proves that there was a common object and in pursuance of that common object, appellants were carrying deadly weapons, which means that apart from the axe which was carried by Madan Bharti, the rest of all were carrying lathi and in pursuance of common object, they assaulted many persons from the informant side including the injured persons as listed in the doctor's injury report. Therefore, the offences of Section 148 including Sections 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is fully made out.

FINDINGS

21. I have heard both the counsels and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case there are 12 appellants and these appellants were convicted under sections 148, 323/149, 326/149 and 504 of IPC. Learned trial court did not impose sentences under sections 323/149 and 504 of IPC as these sections were compounded and sentences were passed only under sections 148 and section 326/149 of IPC.

22. Here, it is pertinent to note that this appeal was heard along with Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 345 of 2010, the reason being that both these appeals arose out of case and counter case between both the parties. The appeal herein arose out of Sessions Trial No. 6/2007, Chainpur P.S. Case No. 72 of 2006 dated 27.05.2006 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 345 of 2010 arose out of Sessions Trial No. 313/2006, Chainpur P.S. Case No. 71 of 2006 dated 27.05.2006.

23. Both these above mentioned case and counter case were tried by the same learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Daltonganj, 9 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 359 of 2010

Palamau, and the judgments were passed in both the case and counter case one after the another on same date i.e. on 31.03.2010.

24. Parties in both the case and counter case are gotias and as per the fardbeyan of both the case and counter case and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I find that incident of assault between both the parties occurred due to land dispute and more specifically path related dispute. Total 23 accused persons were convicted by the learned trial court in both the aforesaid case and counter case. From the evidence, I find that free fight occurred between both the parties and total 15 persons from both sides, whose injury reports are on the record, were injured in the free fight. At para-18 of the impugned judgment, learned trial court has also noted that reason for dispute between both the parties was path related dispute and due to this there was free fight between both parties.

25. The conviction of the appellants are under sections 148 and 326/149 of IPC. Here it is pertinent to note the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex court in Munir Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1971 SC 335,wherein, there was mutual fight between the parties and Apex Court had held that Trial Court was not justified in convicting any of the accused by having recourse to section 149 IPC. In this case, Apex Court also held that in a mutual fight, there is no common object. Further, in case of Puran v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1976 SC 912, Hon'ble Apex Court at para-4 had held that in case of sudden mutual fight between the parties there is no question of invoking the aid of section 149 for the purpose of imposing constructive criminal liability on the appellant. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the appellant could be convicted only for the injuries caused by him for his individual act. On going through the impugned judgment, I find that learned court has not given any finding as to which of the party was aggressor. In the case in hand, sudden mutual fight occurred between both the parties, as has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in view of judgments in Munir Khan(supra) and Puran(supra) appellants herein cannot be made vicariously liable with the aid of section 149 and in that view provision of section 148 of IPC will also not be attracted. Hence, charges against the appellants under section 148 of IPC also fails.

26.(i) Regarding conviction of the appellants under sections 326 of IPC, the ratio laid down in Puran(supra) will be followed i.e. the appellant could be 10 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 359 of 2010

convicted only for the injuries caused by him for his individual act.

(ii) I find that in this case there are 6 injured persons out of which one of the alleged injured Manoj Bharti was not examined by the prosecution to corroborate the injuries sustained by him. Further, one of the injured PW-5 Kedarnath Bharti, who is also the informant of the case, was declared hostile and he did not depose about assault on him, in his deposition. PW-14 Dharemendre Bharti, is also an injured and he also did not support injury sustained by him in his evidence.

(iii) Other three remaining injured witnesses PW-1 Nandlal Bharti, PW-2 Shashi Bharti and PW-4 Videshi Paswan, have deposed about assault on them and have specifically named the appellant, who assaulted them. PW-1 Nandlal Bharti has deposed appellant no.6 Ramrekha Bharti had assaulted him with lathi on his back and appellant no.2 Mahendra Bharti had also assaulted him. PW-3 Doctor, had examined the injured PW-1 Nandlal Bharti and had found two injuries on his person -(i) Lacerated wound 4" x 1" bone deep on the anterior parietal scalp and (ii) Lacerated wound 4"x 1" bone posterior parietal scalp. Doctor opined that

injuries sustained by PW-1 Nandlal Bharti were caused by hard and blunt substance and were simple in nature. Other injured PW-2 Shashi Bharti had deposed that appellant no. 10 Sarwan Bharti had assaulted him with lathi on his head. Doctor had found lacerated wound measuring 3"x 1" bone deep on the left parietal scalp on the person of PW-2 Shashi Bharti and opined that injury was caused by

hard and blunt substance and was simple in nature. Further, injured PW-4 Videshi Paswan had deposed that appellant no.1 Madan Bharti had assaulted him with tangi on his head and chin. PW-3 Doctor on examination of PW-4 Videshi Paswan had found three incised injuries on his person:- (1) incised wound measuring 3''x1'' on the upper lip cutting the maxillary bone;

(ii) incised wound measuring 4''x2'' cutting the lower lip and jaw bone upto the chin and

(iii) incised wound measuring 4''x2'' bone deep posterior parietal scalp transversally placed.

Doctor opined that injuries sustained by PW-4 Videshi Paswan were caused by sharp cutting weapon and were grevious in nature.

27. Hence, I find that appellant no.2 Mahendra Bharti and appellant no.6 Ramrekha Bharti had assaulted PW-1 Nand lal Bharti as a result PW-1 had sustained simple injury. Further, appellant no. 10 Sarwan Bharti had assaulted PW-2 Shashi Bharti causing simple injury to him. So, appellant no.2 Mahendra Bharti, appellant no.6 Ramrekha Bharti and appellant no. 10 Sarwan Bharti will be liable only for causing simple injury. Therefore, 11 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 359 of 2010

conviction of appellant no.2 Mahendra Bharti, appellant no.6 Ramrekha Bharti and appellant no. 10 Sarwan Bharti are modified to one under section 323 of IPC.

28. Further, appellant no.1 Madan Bharti had caused grevious injury to PW-4 Videshi Paswan. But, I find that injury sustained by the injured PW-4 Videshi Paswan does not fall within any of the category as enumerated under section 320 of IPC. Hence, I modify the conviction of appellant no.1 Madan Bharti to one under section 324 of IPC for causing incised wound to PW-4 Videshi Paswan, by tangi.

29. So far as conviction of the remaining appellants i.e. appellant no. 3 Mandip Bharti, appellant no.4 Premchand Bharti, appellant no.5 Upendra Bharti, appellant no.7 Naina Bharti, appellant no. 8 Janesh Bharti, appellant no.9 Sudama Bharti, appellant no.11 Radheshyam Bharti, appellant no.12 Rakesh Bharti are concerned, I find that the injured witnesses more specifically PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, who have deposed about assault on them have not named these appellants as assailants. Hence, in view of the ratio laid down in Puran (supra), these appellants cannot be made vicariously liable with aid of section 149 of IPC. Therefore, these appellants are acquitted of all the charges.

30. Hence, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 31.03.2010, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Daltonganj, Palamau in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 2007, so far as it relates to appellant no. 3 Mandip Bharti, appellant no. 4 Premchand Bharti, appellant no.5 Upendra Bharti, appellant no.7 Naina Bharti, appellant no. 8 Janesh Bharti, appellant no.9 Sudama Bharti, appellant no.11 Radheshyam Bharti and appellant no.12 Rakesh Bharti, are hereby set aside and these appellants are discharged from the liability of bail bonds. So far as conviction of appellant no.2 Mahendra Bharti, appellant no.6 Ramrekha Bharti and appellant no. 10 Sarwan Bharti are concerned, there conviction is modified to one under section 323 of IPC and conviction of appellant no.1 Madan Bharti is modified to one under section 324 of IPC.

31.(i) Regarding sentence under section 323 of IPC of the appellant no.2 Mahendra Bharti, appellant no.6 Ramrekha Bharti and appellant no. 10 Sarwan Bharti, are concerned, I find that both the parties to the dispute have compromised and learned trial court had also noted about compromise between both the parties in the impugned judgment. Learned trial court had 12 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 359 of 2010

compounded the conviction of the appellants under section 323/149 of IPC and did not impose any sentence, for appellants conviction, under section 323/149 of IPC. Hence, at this stage also no custodial sentence is passed against these appellants for their modified conviction under section 323 of IPC. Appellant no.2 Mahendra Bharti, appellant no.6 Ramrekha Bharti and appellant no. 10 Sarwan Bharti are discharged from the liability of bail bonds.

(ii) Regarding sentence of the appellant no.1 Madan Bharti for his modified conviction under section 324 of IPC, at this stage he shall undergo three months SI and any period already undergone by him shall be subtracted. Bail bond of appellant no.1 Madan Bharti, stands cancelled.

32. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed.

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated:05/08/2022 Madhav-NAFR