Sonu @ Kanha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7253 MP

                                                                           1
                                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                      AT INDORE
                                                                           BEFORE
                                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                                                    ON THE 13th OF MAY, 2022

                                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2748 of 2022

                                                     Between:-
                                                     SONU @ KANHA S/O SHIVNARAYAN KEER ,
                                                     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
                                                     CONTRACTOR KAILOD KANKAD, TEHSIL
                                                     SANWER (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....APPELLANT
                                                     (BY SHRI D.S. TOMAR, ADVOCATE )

                                                     AND

                                                     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                                                     HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
                                                     LASUDIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                                                     (BY MS. VARSHA THAKUR, DY GA FOR STATE AND SHRI
                                                     ABHISHEK SHARDA, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)

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

This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.02.2022 passed b y Additional Session Judge (Special Judge), District Indore in S.T. No.1000631/2014 whereby the appellant and another co-accused Vinod have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR 325/34 IPC and sentenced for 1 year R.I. with fine and default Date: 2022.05.17 17:48:40 IST

stipulations and the appellant has been acquitted from the charges under

Section 294 and 506(II) of IPC.

As per the prosecution story, on 21.012.2013, the brother of the injured Radheshyam has lodged Dehati Nalishi by submitting that his brother Prem Thakur is indulged in the business of Cable Network and was residing on rent at Lasudiya Mori, Indore. He informed the police that the appellant Sonu and Vinod alongwith other accused persons have assaulted his brother by stone and kicks and fists and caused fracture to him. Hence, the FIR was lodged by the Police authorities under Section 352, 323, 294 and 506/34 of IPC.

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 committed to the Court of ASJ, Indore T h e prosecution has examined total 9 witnesses namely Premsingh (PW-1), Ganesh (PW-2), Lakshminarayan (PW-3), Chandershakher (PW-4), Radheshyam (PW-5), Dr. Deepak Phandse (PW-6), Dr. Amit Katlana (PW-7), Dr. G.S,. Saluja (PW-8), & Yuvraj Singh Kushwaha(PW-9).

The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and he took a plea that he is innocent.

The appellant was tried and charged under Sections 325, 323,

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR 294, 506/34 of IPC. The appellant was discharged from the offence Date: 2022.05.17 17:48:40 IST

under Section 307 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 appellant submits that the appellant is not challenging the conviction and only submits that the appellant and the complainant party have compromised the case and prays for acquittal of the appellant on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that both the parties have compromised the case. Hence, the appellant 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 caused by the appellant are serious in nature. He supported the judgment and order by submitting that there is clear evidence against the appellant, 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 09.05.2022 has directed the parties

to appear before Principal Registrar of this Court on 11.05.2022 for verification of the compromise. Complete record of the case was sent to the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of the

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR compromise. The parties appeared before the Principal Registrar. On Date: 2022.05.17 17:48:40 IST

verification, the Principal Registrar vide report dated 11.05.2022 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, and mentioned that the offenced under Section 325/34 is 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 and the judgement of the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charge under Section 325/34 of IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

He 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.

Pending application, if any, stands closed. Certified copy, as per rules.

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR Date: 2022.05.17 17:48:40 IST

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))

JUDGE amit

Signature Not Verified VerifiedDigitally Digitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR Date: 2022.05.17 17:48:40 IST