Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna Gir & Anr. vs State Of M.P. on 5 February, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 310 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
1. KANHIYA GIR & ANR. S/O PRABHU GIR, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, VILL.LAKDIYA
PS.NARSINGHGARH,RAJGARH(BIAORA)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PREM GIR S/O KAILASH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
VILL.LAKDIYA
PS.NARSINGHGARH,RAJGARH(BIAORA)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI JUNED AHMAD KHAN APPEARED FOR PETITIONER.
AND
STATE OF M.P.
THRU.PS.NARSINGHGARH,RAJGARH(BIAORA)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SACHIN JAISWAL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF AG..
This appeal coming for hearing before this Court, the court passed the
following:
JUDGEMENT
This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the
appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.03.2009, passed by ASJ,
Narsingh Garh District Rajgarh (M.P.), in S.T. No.277/2008, whereby each
appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325/34
of IPC and sentenced to undergo 4-4 Months R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- each
with default stipulations.
2. Before this Court, both the parties have filed an application for
compounding the offences.
3 . The said application was sent for verification before the Principal
Registrar vide order dated 18.01.2024. In compliance to the said order, the
appellants and complainants also appeared before the Principal Registrar. The
compromise was verified and a report dated 30.01.2024 has been submitted that
accused/appellants and the complainants have entered into compromise with
mutual consent. There is no dispute remaining between the accused/appellants
and the complainants. But as per the aforesaid report, the offence under
Sections 325 of IPC is compoundable.
4. Counsel for the appellants submits that so far as sentence is concerned,
the appellants have already undergone jail sentence of more than one month and
the incident had taken place in the year 2007. Compromise has already been
done between the parties and therefore, the appellant may be acquitted from the
charges under Section 325/34 of IPC on the basis of compromise.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/state has opposed the prayer.
However, counsel for the objector has not objected and fairly admitted that they
have compromised the case with the appellants.
6. Nevertheless, the appellant has not impugned the merits of conviction
and confined their arguments for acquittal of the appellants only on the basis of
compromise application, but still this appellate Court is of the view to examine
the sanctity of conviction. On this aspect, I have gone through the order of the
trial Court. The prosecution case is not only fortified by the eye-witnesses
including the injured persons, but also well supported by medical testimony and
documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court.
7. So far as the offence under Section 325/34 of IPC is concerned, it is
compoundable with the leave of this Court. Since there is no public interest
involved in this case, the leave for compromise is granted and in the effect of
that, the appellants are acquitted from the charges under Section 325/34 of IPC
resepectively on the basis of compromise.
8. Since the appellants have acquitted on the basis of compromise, fine
amount, if any depoisted by the appellant shall be returned to them accordingly.
9 . The appellants are already on bail. Their bail bonds would be
canceled.
10. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding seized property stands
confirmed.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
necessary compliance.
Pending application, if any shall be closed.
With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
