Jaliya And 7 Others vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6941 MP

                                                                        1
                                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                  AT INDORE
                                                                      BEFORE
                                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                                                  ON THE 9th OF MAY, 2022

                                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 76 of 2014

                                                 Between:-
                                            1.   JALIYA AND 7 OTHERS S/O KHIMA MACHAR
                                                 BHIL , AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NAAD, P.S.
                                                 RANAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            2.   JANIYA S/O JALIYA MACHAR BHIL , AGED
                                                 ABOUT 30 YEARS, NAAD, THANA-RANAPUR,
                                                 DISTT-JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            3.   RAMU S/O MANA MACHAR BHIL , AGED ABOUT
                                                 35 YEARS, NAAD, THANA-RANAPUR, DISTT-
                                                 JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            4.   BALU S/O HURTAN MACHAR BHIL , AGED
                                                 ABOUT 30 YEARS, NAAD, THANA-RANAPUR,
                                                 DISTT-JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            5.   BABU S/O HIMLA MACHAR BHIL , AGED ABOUT
                                                 40 YEARS, NAAD, THANA-RANAPUR, DISTT-
                                                 JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            6.   BABU S/O NATHIYA MACHAR BHIL , AGED
                                                 ABOUT 32 YEARS, NAAD, THANA-RANAPUR,
                                                 DISTT-JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            7.   PARTU S/O BHURKA MACHAR BHIL , AGED
                                                 ABOUT 30 YEARS, NAAD, THANA-RANAPUR,
                                                 DISTT-JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                .....APPELLANT
                                                 (BY SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH YADAV, ADVOCATE )

                                                 AND

                                                 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT.
                                                 THRU. P.S. RANAPUR, DIST. JHABUA (MADHYA
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
  SAN                 AMIT KUMAR
                                                 PRADESH)
                      Date: 2022.05.14
                      16:38:57 IST


                                                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
                                                 (BY SHRI HEMANT SHARMA, GA FOR THE STATE )
                                                                             2

                                                  This appeal coming on HEARING this day and with the consent
                                            of parties, heard finally and the court passed the following:
                                                                         JUDGEMENT

This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Cr.P.C. by t h e appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.12.2013 passed by Additional Session Judge, District Jhabua in S.T. No.124/2011 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 324/149 (on four counts) and 326 IPC and sentenced for 1 year, 2-2 months, and 4 years R.I. with fine

and default stipulations to each of the appellants.

A s per the prosecution story, on 03.07.2011, the goat of the appellants entered in the field of complainant Jambu and ate the crop of Maize. The complainant went to the house of the appellants for complain the incident. The appellant Jaliya assaulted the complainant with the help of arrow and other appellants assaulted the complainant party by pelting stones. Hence, the case was registered against the appellants and a cross-case was also registered against the complainant party also.

During investigation, medical examination was conducted, spot map was prepared, seized articles were sent to the Forensic Laboratory and thereafter taking the statements of the witnesses the matter was

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by committed to the Court of ASJ, Jhabua.

  SAN                 AMIT KUMAR
                      Date: 2022.05.14
                      16:38:57 IST

The prosecution has examined total 12 witnesses namely Lalu

(PW-1), Jalu (PW-2), AleSingh (PW-3), Kantabai (PW-4), Ratna (PW-

5), Kaliya (PW-6), Sagga (PW-7), Dr. G.S. Chouhan (PW-8), Padam Singh (PW-9), Samandar Singh (PW-10), Dr. Bhuwani Kumar (PW-

11) and Dr. Yashwant (PW-12).

The appellants/accused abjured their guilt and he took a plea that they are innocent.

The appellants were tried and charged under Sections 294, 148, 324 or 324/149, 326 or 326/149 and 506 of IPC. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence and material available on record has Convicted the appellant, as stated above.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant is not challenging the conviction and only submits that the appellants and the complainant party have compromised the case and prays for acquittal of the appellants on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that both the parties have compromised the case in both the case i.e. in the present case as well as in the cross-case. Hence, the appellants may be acquitted.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. Inviting my attention towards the conclusive paragraphs of the impugned judgement, learned public prosecutor has submitted that the injuries

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR caused by the appellants are serious in nature. He supported the Date: 2022.05.14 16:38:57 IST

judgment and order by submitting that there is clear evidence against the

appellants, therefore, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered rival contentions of the parties and have perused the record.

This Court vide order dated 28.04.2022 have directed the parties to appear before Principal Registrar of this Court on 05.05.2022 for verification of the compromise. Complete record of the case was sent to the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of the compromise. The parties appeared before the Principal Registrar. On verification, the Principal Registrar vide report dated 05.05.2022 has certified that both the parties have entered into a compromise voluntarily without any coercion, inducement or fraud.

According to the report received from the Principal Registrar, the compromise was entered into without any coercion and duress, but mentioned that the offenced under Section 324 and 326 of IPC are non- compoundable.

After going into aforesaid consideration and after considering the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and the fact that same has been verified, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby allowed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR The judgement of the learned trial Court is hereby upheld qua the Date: 2022.05.14 16:38:57 IST

conviction and the sentence of appellants is reduced to the sentence

already undergone on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

They be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case in jail.

The order of the trial Court regarding disposal of the seized article stands confirmed.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for necessary information.

Certified copy, as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE amit

Signature Not Verified VerifiedDigitally Digitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR Date: 2022.05.14 16:38:57 IST