Rajaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16444 MP

                                                                          1
                           IN     THE           HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                                CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10169 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    RAJARAM S/O AMBARAM JAT, AGED ABOUT 51
                                Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
                                VILLAGE BARLAI KHACHROD DISTT.UJJAIN
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    MAHENDRA S/O RAJARAM JAT, AGED ABOUT 32
                                YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
                                BARLAI, P.S KHACHROD DISTRICT UJJAIN
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    SURENDRA S/O RAJARAM JAAT, AGED ABOUT 28
                                YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
                                BARLAI PS KHACHROD DISTRICT UJJAIN
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    PUKHRAJ S/O KISHANLAL JAAT, AGED ABOUT 39
                                YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
                                BARLAI, PS KHACHROD DISTRICT UJJAIN
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                                     .....APPELLANT
                          (BY SHRI APPROV JOSHI, ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                          OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION KHACHROD
                          DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY MS. NISHA JAISWAL, GOVT. ADVOCATE )

                                                               Heard On:                    11.09.2023
                                                               Delivered On:               06.10.2023
                                ........................................................................................................
                                This appeal coming on for judgement this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 10/7/2023
1:05:34 PM
                                                               2
                          following:
                                                             JUDGMENT

With consent of the parties heard finally.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khachrod, District- Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 27/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 325/34 and Section 323/34(03 Counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo 03 years and 01 year R.I with fine of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively with default stipulations.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 27.01.2017, due to an old enmity

between the complainant and the appellants, when the complainant was at his filed, the appellants reached on the spot and assaulted the complainant. When the relatives of complainant tried to intervene, the appellants also assaulted on them also. Thereafter, the appellants abused the complainant party in filthy language and left the place of incident threatening the complainant that they will

kill them next time. Thereafter, the complainant has filed a complaint and on

the basis of which police registered crime 323, 325, 294, 506/34 of IPC. against the accused person. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 325/34 and Section 323/34 (03 Counts) of IPC.

3. Both the parties have filed an application for compounding the offences.

4. The said application was sent for verification before the Principal Registrar of the Court. In compliance to the said order, the appellant marked his presence before the Principal Registrar and complainant also appeared before Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 10/7/2023 1:05:34 PM

t h e Principal Registrar. The compromise was verified and a report dated 06.09.2023 has been submitted in which it is mentioned that accused/appellants and the complainants have entered into compromise with mutual consent. There is no dispute is remained between the accused/appellants and the complainants.

5. Counsel for the appellants submits that both the parties have compromised the case against each other because there is a cross-case also and the appellants have also compromised with the complainants in the cross appeal. As the parties have entered into compromise, the appellants may be discharged from the aforesaid offence.

6 . Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that compromise have taken place between the parties and the same has been verified by Principal Registrar of this Court. But as per the verification report, the complainant/injured Sumer Singh S/o Virendra Singh suffered injury under Section 323 (one count) of IPC and he could not appear before the Principal Registrar. Hence, the offence committed against him cannot be compounded.

7. Looking to the fact that both the parties have entered into compromise. Although, the injured Sumer Singh has not appeared for verification of the compromise, but his father Virender Singh has appeared before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of the compromise, therefore, the arguments regarding punishment part of the appellants, can be considered

leniently.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the conviction of the appellants under Section 323 (one count) of IPC regarding injured Sumer Singh, is hereby affirmed however, the sentence of one year is liable to be and is hereby reduced to the period already undergone on the basis of compromise, but fine amount of Rs.1000/- is affirmed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 10/7/2023 1:05:34 PM

9 . So far as the other injured persons namely Govind Singh, Mangal Singh and Virender Singh are concerned, the offence under Section 323 and 325 of IPC can be compounded with the leave of this Court.

10. Looking to the fact that there is no public interest involved in the case, leave for compounding the aforesaid offence under Section 323 (two counts) and under Section 325 of IPC is allowed. Resultantly, the appellants are acquitted from the charges under Sections 323 (two counts) of IPC and under Section 325 of IPC respectively on the basis of compromise.

11. The fine amount if already deposited by each of the appellant under section 323 (two counts) of IPC and under Section 325 of IPC respectively be returned.

12. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding seized property stands confirmed.

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

14.With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off. Certified copy, as per rules.

Pending application, if any, stands closed.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE amit

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 10/7/2023 1:05:34 PM