Shivnarayan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 225 MP

                                   1                                CRR-1458-2014
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   CRR-1458-2014
                   (SHIVNARAYAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

2
Indore, Dated : 25-02-2021
      Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Kushal Goyal, learned Panel lawyer for the respondent-State.

Shri Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant. Heard on I.A. No. 1810/2021, an application under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C.seeking permission of this Court for compromise.

For the reasons stated in the application, I.A. is allowed. Permission granted.

Further heard on I.A. No.1812/2021, an application under Section 320(1) of Cr.P.C. submitted by the complainant Indar Singh.

This revision arises out of the judgment dated 25/11/2014 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Biora in Criminal Appeal No.161/2012 confirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 26/04/2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biora in Criminal Case No.857/2010 whereby petitioner has been convicted under Section 325 r/w 34 of IPC and

sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

The facts of the case have been detailed in the impugned judgment by the Courts below, therefore, this Court does not want to repeat the same overall again.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant does not want to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by appellate Court. He further submits that the complainant-Indar Singh has filed an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. for granting the permission to compound the offence and compromise with the accused. The applicant has already undergone 11 days sentence (i.e. from 25/11/2014 to 05/12/2014) and the fine amount has already 2 CRR-1458-2014 been deposited and has no previous criminal conduct and, therefore learned counsel for applicant prays for reduction of jail sentence to the period already undergone by applicant. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the case of Manjappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 6 SCC 231.

The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant Indar Singh settled the subject matter of the crime with the applicant amicably

and now he does not want to prosecute the applicant and therefore, on the basis of the compromise, the applicant may be discharged from the offence. In this regard, the complainant filed I.A.No.1812/2021, an application under Section 320(1) of Cr.P.C. supported by affidavit of the complainant Indar Singh and joint affidavits of applicant and the complainant.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that now all the disputes have been resolved amicably with the applicant and therefore, he does not wish to prosecute the applicant.

Since the applicant has been convicted under Section 325/34 of IPC, which is not compoundable, however the matter was compromised by the complainant with the accused and they wanted to live in peace, the same shall be considered at the time of awarding the sentence.

Appellate Court and the trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record found guilt of the applicant. In view of the reasons assigned by the Courts below for convicting the applicant to be trustworthy, this Court does not want to deviate from the same. As before this Court the finding of conviction recorded by the Courts against the applicant has not been challenged by the applicant, hence the aforesaid finding is hereby affirmed. The sentence of the applicant has already been suspended by this Court vide order dated 05/12/2014.

With regard to the sentence awarded is concerned the applicant has been sentenced by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court as stated hereinabove. No previous criminal conduct of the applicant has been proved by the prosecution.

3 CRR-1458-2014 In the case of Manjappa (Supra), the appellant, Manjappa was convicted under Section 323 and 325 of the Code and sentenced to 3 months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- respectively. The appellate Court set aside the order of conviction under Section 323 of the IPC, however, affirmed the order of conviction under Section 325 of the IPC but reduced the sentence from 1 year to 6 months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-. That order was challenged by filing the revision petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court affirmed the order of conviction, however, reduced the sentence to the simple imprisonment for one month and fifteen days with fine of Rs.1,000/-. The Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the sentence to the period

already remained in custody for about 15 days.

Consequently this revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction part of the applicant passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court under Section 325/34 of IPC is hereby affirmed but the sentence is set aside and instead thereof, the applicant is sentenced to the the period already undergone by him in jail with fine as imposed by the Courts below. The applicant is on bail, therefore he be set at liberty, if not required in any other criminal case.

With the aforesaid modification, this revision petition is disposed of.

                                                                            (ROHIT ARYA)
                                                                               JUDGE


    vc


VARSHA    Digitally signed by VARSHA CHATURVEDI
          DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
          PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH


CHATURV
          COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
          GWALIOR, postalCode=474011,
          st=Madhya Pradesh,
          2.5.4.20=df59fbf0f5c7485addc8affe3edf2



EDI
          0e67d11d7f91045d81139f6792fbd4ae91f
          , cn=VARSHA CHATURVEDI
          Date: 2021.02.27 11:11:16 +05'30'