China Ram vs State (2023/Rjjd/011770)
2023 Latest Caselaw 3443 Raj

[2023/RJJD/011770]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 571/2006

Chaina Ram S/o Har Lal, By Caste Jat,                         R/o Murkasani, P.S.
Bilara, Jodhpur
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                       Versus
State
                                                                    ----Respondent
                                 Connected With
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 411/2006
Lakha Ram S/o Shiv Ram, By Caste Jat, R/o Villlage Murkasni,
P.S. Bilara, Tehsil Bilaram District Jodhpur.
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                       Versus
State
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. R.K. Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA
                                   Mr. Balu Singh Rathore



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                    Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT                           :::                      24/04/2023

BY THE COURT:-

1. By way of these two appeals, challenge has been made

against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 27.04.2006 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge No.1 (Fast Track), Jodhpur in Sessions Case

No.118/2005 whereby the appellants have been convicted and

sentenced under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325 and 307 IPC.

[2023/RJJD/011770] (2 of 7) [CRLA-571/2006]

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a written

report (Ex.P/6) submitted by the complainant Budha Ram P.W.-4,

the investigation commenced wherein the accused-appellants

Chaina Ram and Lakha Ram were arrested and after usual

investigation, charge sheet came to be submitted against them for

the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 326 325/34 of

the IPC. After taking cognizance of the offences, the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilara committed the matter

to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 (Fast

Track) Jodhpur where charges were framed against the accused-

appellants. As many as 13 witnesses were examined and 22

documents were tendered into evidence on behalf of the

prosecution. Thereafter, an explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

was sought wherein the accused-appellants claimed innocence and

explained that they were falsely implicated in the case at hand.

Two witnesses Jai Ram D.W.1 and Pappu Ram D.W. 2 were

produced in defence and reliance was placed upon Ex.D1 to Ex.D6.

Thereafter, after hearing the counsel for the parties, learned Judge

has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the

offences which are as under:-

Name of the Offence for Sentence awarded and fine appellants which convicted Chaina Ram 341 IPC 15 days' simple imprisonment 323 IPC 3 months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.

324 IPC 6 months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

[2023/RJJD/011770] (3 of 7) [CRLA-571/2006]

325 IPC One year's simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

307 IPC 7 years' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year.

Lakha Ram 341 IPC 15 days simple imprisonment 323 IPC 3 months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.

325 IPC One year's simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

307 IPC 7 years' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year.

3. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4. During the course of appeal, the parties have entered into a

compromise by resolving their dispute amicably and accordingly,

the matter was placed before the National Lok Adalat convened on

10.07.2021 whereby the compromise submitted by the parties got

attested in National Lok Adalat and order sheet was drawn in this

regard.

5. Learned counsel for the parties submit that except the

offence under Section 307 IPC, the rest of the offences are

compoundable by virtue of Section 320 of the IPC. It is submitted

that prima facie no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out

because neither the facts and circumstances of the case bring the

matter within the ambit of Section 307 of the IPC nor the injuries

sustained by the victim Amra Ram are such so as to cause danger

to life of the victim. As such, there is no basis upon which an

inference of intent to commit murder can be inferred. It is argued

that the parties are close-relatives and residents of the same

[2023/RJJD/011770] (4 of 7) [CRLA-571/2006]

vicinity; the parties appeared before this Court and executed the

compromise meaning thereby that they have resolved the dispute

amicably and have restablished their relations, therefore, in order

to maintain peace and harmony and to bury down the old dispute,

inherent powers may be exercised to quash the proceedings and

set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer

so made by the learned counsel for the appellants though he does

not dispute the fact that the parties have entered into a

compromise and settled their dispute amicably as also that they

are residents of the same village and the dispute occurred in spur

of the moment.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned

Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the material

available on record.

8. A perusal of the record reflects that the incident occurred on

24.11.2004. There was no pre-meditation or pre-plan to commit

offence rather the dispute erupted in between the parties on a

very trivial issue and in spur of the moment. Looking to the nature

of injuries, number of injuries, part of body chosen to inflict injury,

kind of weapon used to inflict injuries, the number of accused

persons and other surrounding circumstances, it can be presumed

that the matter does not come within the ambit of Section 307 of

the IPC as there is not an iota of evidence on record from which it

can safely be inferred that accused-appellants had intended to kill

the victim Amra Ram and only for that purpose, the attempt was

[2023/RJJD/011770] (5 of 7) [CRLA-571/2006]

made. Intention to kill someone is an essential ingredient to

constitute an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, which is

lacking in the instant matter. Thus, no offence under Section 307

IPC is made out. The incident had occurred in the year 2004 and

now around 18 years have elapsed. The dispute is interse

between the parties and does not affect the society at large or

does not pertain to maintenance of law and order and breach of

peace and tranquility. The long lasting bitterness in relations and

dispute between the parties has been yielded up and their

vengeance does not exist now. The relationship between them has

been restablished and old dispute has been buried down. Except

the offence under Section 307 IPC, all the other offences are

compoundable in which compounding application has been

attested and verified before the National Lok Adalat, Jodhpur held

on 10.07.2021 as compromise deed has been executed in

between the parties contending therein that their lis has been

resolved amicably thus, they do not wish to continue the criminal

proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same. The

offence under Section 307 IPC is not proved beyond reasonable

doubt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs.

State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has

propounded that if it is convinced that offences are entirely

personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquility

and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of

compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of

justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the same by

exercising the inherent powers vested in it. It is observed that in

[2023/RJJD/011770] (6 of 7) [CRLA-571/2006]

such cases, the prosecution becomes lame prosecution and

pursuing such a lame prosecution would be a waste of time and

energy that will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct

restoration of peace. This court is aptly guided by the principles

propounded by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and feels that when

dispute is essentially inter se between the parties, either they are

relatives, neighbours or having business relationship which does

not affect the society at large, then in such cases, with a view to

maintain harmonious relationship between the two sides and for

restitution of relationship and with a view to end-up the dispute in

between them permanently, the High Court should exercise its

inherent power to quash the FIR and all other subsequent

proceedings initiated thereto.

9. Here, in this case, though the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence has been passed but now the parties have

settled the dispute amicably and the same is essentially in

between the parties which is not affecting public peace and

tranquility, therefore, with a view to maintain the harmony and to

resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, it is deemed

appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned judgment

passed by the court below and acquit the appellants from the

charges aforesaid.

10. Accordingly, the criminal appeals are allowed and the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

27.04.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4,

Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No.118/2005 (State Vs

Chaina Ram & Lakha Ram) are hereby quashed and set aside. The

[2023/RJJD/011770] (7 of 7) [CRLA-571/2006]

accused-appellants Chaina Rama and Lakha Ram are acquitted

from the charges under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325 and 307

IPC. Their bail bonds are cancelled.

11. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 172-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)