Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Subhash Chandra And Ors vs State on 15 March, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLA-673/2011]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 673/2011
Subhash Chandra And Ors.
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. RDSS Kharlia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
15/03/2022
In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its
highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
Mr. RDSS Kharlia, counsel for the appellants as well as
Dr. Rakesh Sinha, counsel for the complainant have drawn
attention of this Court to the compromise-deed entered between
the parties. They jointly submits that the appellants and
respondent/complainant, who are very closely related to each
other, and have buried their hatchet after the issue in-question
took place.
Notarized copy of compromise verified by Registrar Judicial
of this Court on 02.02.2022 is taken on record.
Counsel for the parties have further drawn attention of this
Court to the precedent law of Hon`ble Supreme Court in
(Downloaded on 16/03/2022 at 08:41:01 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-673/2011]
Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr., reported in (2011) 13 SCC 311; relevant
portion whereof reads as follows :-
"16. We must immediately state that the offence under Section
307 is not compoundable in terms of Section 320(9) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and, therefore,
compounding of the offence in the present case is out of
question. However, the circumstances pointed out by the
learned senior counsel do persuade us for a lenient view in
regard to the sentence. The incident occurred on May 17, 1991
and it is almost twenty years since then. The Appellants are
agriculturists by occupation and have no previous criminal
background. There has been reconciliation amongst parties; the
relations between the Appellants and the victim have become
cordial and prior to the Appellants' surrender, the parties have
been living peacefully in the village. The Appellants have
already undergone the sentence of more than two and a half
years. Having regard to these circumstances, we are satisfied
that ends of justice will be met if the substantive sentence
awarded to the Appellants is reduced to the period already
undergone while maintaining the amount of fine.
17. Consequently, while confirming the conviction of the
Appellants for the offences punishable under Section 307 read
with Section 34, Section 332 read with Section 34 and Section
353 read with Section 34, the substantive sentence awarded to
them by the High Court is reduced to the period already
undergone. The fine amount and the default stipulation remain
as it is."
and Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Preadesh,
reported in (2008) 15 SCC 667; relevant portion whereof reads
as follows :-
"14. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 9 SCC 255,
Murugesan and Ors. v. Ganapathy Velar and Ishwarlal v. State of
(Downloaded on 16/03/2022 at 08:41:01 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-673/2011]
M.P. JT 1988 (3) SC 366 (1), this Court, while taking into account
the fact of compromise between the parties, reduced sentence
imposed on the appellant-accused to already undergone, though the
offences were not compoundable. But it was also stated that in
Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, such offence was ordered to be
compounded.
15. In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order
compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code
ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment,
however, limited submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant
deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the
factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant
circumstance which, the Court may keep in mind.
16. In the instant case, the incident took place before more than
fifteen years; the parties are residing in one and the same village and
they are also relatives. The appellant was about 20 years of age at the
time of commission of crime. It was his first offence. After
conviction, the petitioner was taken into custody. During the
pendency of appeal before the High Court, he was enlarged on bail
but, after the decision of the High Court, he again surrendered and is
in jail at present. Though he had applied for bail, the prayer was not
granted and he is not released on bail. Considering the totality of
facts and circumstances, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met
if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant (Accused
No. 1) is reduced to the period already undergone.
17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be partly
allowed and accordingly allowed by maintaining the conviction
recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the Appellate Court but
by reducing the sentence already undergone by the appellant. The
sentence of payment of fine is not disturbed. If the appellant has not
paid the amount of fine, he will pay such amount within four weeks
from today."
Counsel for the parties, thus, jointly submit that it would be
appropriate if this Court looking into extremely delicate and close
relationship among parties and also the fact that the incident is
about 18 years ago, a lenient view is taken while deciding the
(Downloaded on 16/03/2022 at 08:41:01 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-673/2011]
appeal as they do not wish to challenge the impugned judgment
on merits.
It is taken note by this Court that the appellant no. 1 and 2
have suffered sentence of 01 year and 22 days, whereas
appellants no.3 & 4, who are ladies, have suffered sentence of 12
days. Thus, while adhering to the precedent law cited hereinabove
and keeping into consideration the compromise in the given facts
and circumstances when the parties are close relatives, the
submissions advanced by counsel for the parties are accepted.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed the sentence undergone
by the appellants is declared as sufficient to satisfy the impugned
judgment dated 06.08.2011. Since the accused-appellants are
already on bail, their bail bonds are discharged.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
145-Sanjay/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
