Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Panchi Lal (2023:Rj-Jd:40897) on 28 November, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:40897] (1 of 4) [CRLR-977/2022]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 977/2022
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Petitioner
Versus
Panchi Lal S/o Mamraj, Aged About 30 Years, Rasisar Bada Baas,
Police Station Nokha District Bikaner
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manjula Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
28/11/2023
Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed
for reasons stated therein and the delay in filing the revision
petition is condoned.
The matter is taken up today itself.
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner-State challenging the order dated
09.03.2022 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge,
Bikaner only to the extent of acquittal of the respondent for
offence under Sections 307 & 324 IPC on the basis of compromise
arrived at between the parties.
Brief facts of the case are that on 23.07.2015 complainant
Bhadar Ram submitted a written report at Police Station Nokha
alleging therein that on 23.07.2015 at about 7:30 AM when his
niece Sarita was waiting for a bus to go to school, accused
[2023:RJ-JD:40897] (2 of 4) [CRLR-977/2022]
respondent Panchi Lal threw stone upon her. When Pushpa
(mother of Sarita) came there, Panchi Lal inflicted axe blow on the
head of Pushpa with the intention to kill her. On this report, Police
registered a case for offence under Sections 323, 341, 354, 34 IPC
against the accused-respondent and started investigation.
After investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet against
the respondent for offence under Section 307, 323, 341, 324 IPC.
Thereafter, charges were framed by the learned trial court against
the respondent, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 5 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statement of the
accused-respondent under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
After hearing the arguments of the parties, learned trial
court vide its judgment dated 22.03.2022 acquitted the accused-
respondent from the offences under Sections 323, 341, 324 IPC
on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties and
also acquitted the accused-respondent for offence under Section
307 IPC due to lack of evidence.
Hence, this revision petition challenging the judgment to the
extent of acquittal of the respondent for offence under Sections
307 & 324 IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at between the
parties.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner-State
submits that the impugned order is per se illegal and deserves to
be set aside. He submits that offence under Sections 307 & 324
IPC are non-compoundable, therefore, the respondent cannot be
acquitted from the said offence on the basis of compromise
arrived at between the parties. But the learned trial court while
[2023:RJ-JD:40897] (3 of 4) [CRLR-977/2022]
ignoring this fact, acquitted the accused respondent for offence
under Sections 307 & 324 IPC.
It is further submitted that the learned trial court has also
committed grave error while acquitting the respondent for offence
under Section 307 IPC due to lack of evidence. Thus, the
impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter may be
remanded back to the trial court for deciding the same afresh.
Per contra, learned counsel for accused-respondent submits
that there are cross cases between the parties and in both the
matters compromise has been arrived at. She further submits that
both the so-called injured eye-witnesses Smt. Pushpa Devi (PW-1)
& Sarita (PW-3) have been declared hostile before the trial court
as well as other material witnesses have also been declared
hostile and since there is no sufficient evidence against the
accused-respondent, therefore, the trial court has rightly acquitted
him for offence under Sections 323, 341, 324 & 307 IPC. Thus, no
interference is called for from this Court in the impugned order.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order as well as material available on record.
In the case at hand, there are cross cases between the
parties and in the cross cases, compromise has been arrived at
between them. Further, injured eye-witnesses Smt. Pushpa Devi
(PW-1) & Sarita (PW-3) have been declared hostile including the
other material witnesses. Since, there is no sufficient evidence
against the respondent, therefore, the learned trial court has
rightly acquitted the respondent for offence under Section 307
IPC.
[2023:RJ-JD:40897] (4 of 4) [CRLR-977/2022]
Further, since the compromise has already been arrived
between the parties, there is no need to continue with the
proceedings against the respondent for offence under Sections
307 & 324 IPC. Thus, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted
the respondent for offence under Sections 323, 324, 341, 307 IPC
on the basis of compromise and due to lack of evidence.
The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and
perversity and thus the same requires no interference from this
Court.
Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
51-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
