Cr. Appeal (SJ).1127 of 2003 v. The State of Jharkhand

Mr. Yogesh Modi appearing on behalf of the appellants also submitted that appellant No.1 Jibalal Sao has expired and the rest of three appellants are alive and it has further been submitted on behalf of the parties that since no close relative or kith and kin of the deceased appellant Jibalal Sao has come forward to continue with this appeal, let this appeal with respect to the deceased appellant 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1127 of 2003 Jibalal Sao be abated.

3. Accordingly, this appeal is abated with respect to the deceased appellant Jibalal Sao, and the rest of the appellants are renumbered in the cause title of memo of appeal.

4. Now this appeal will be heard for the rest of the appellants namely Teklal Sao, Baleshwar Sao and Jagarnath Sao as appellants no.1, 2 and 3 only.

5. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 10th July 2003, passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in S.T. No.139 of 2001 / 16 of 2002, arising out of Birni P.S. Case No.29 of 2000, whereby and where under appellant No.1 Teklal Sao along with the deceased appellant Jibalal Sao were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years R.I. whereas appellant No.2 Baleshwar Sao was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and the appellant No.3 Jagarnath Sao was released on executing bond of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each for maintaining peace and good behaviour for the period of two years.

6. The prosecution case in nut shell was that on 14th April 2000, the informant and her husband were repairing the roof of house. The informant herself was giving earthen tiles to her husband PW – 2, who was on roof. It is alleged that accused persons armed with Tangi and lathi came there and began to get the roof materials fallen and when the informant protested, they caught her hairs and got her fallen and thereafter accused Jibalal Sao (since dead) gave a Tangi blow on her head by causing bleeding, by which, she began to move restlessly. She further alleged that accused Jibalal Sao also gave Tangi blow on her head, accused Jagarnath Sao and Baleshwar Sao gave lathi blow on her left arm, and when her husband came down from roof, accused Teklal Sao gave a tangi blow on his head and others assaulted him on his whole body, by which, he fell down and became senseless. It has further alleged that Jagarnath Sao and 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1127 of 2003 Teklal Sao gave blows by their leg on the informant womb, which, caused her pregnancy of three months miscarriage. The cause of occurrence was stated in FIR was that the accused claimed land measuring one hath land encroached in her house by the informant party.

7. The fardbayan of informant was recorded by ASI M.I. beg of Birni Police station on 14.04.2000 at 20 hours, and case was registered vide Birni P.S. Case No.29 of 2000 u/s 448, 342, 427, 323, 324, 307, 313, 316/34 of IPC against the accused persons. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the charges were framed on 17.01.2002 against the accused perons Jibalal Sao, Teklal Sao, Baleshwar Sao, Jagarnath Sao and Karmi Devi for the offence punishable under Section 307/34, 342/34, 448/34 of IPC and the charge u/s 313, 316 of IPC against the accused Jagarnath Sao and Teklal Sao. The charges were explained to the accused persons and the accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried and the learned trial court after conducting the trail passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.

8. In support of prosecution case, the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses PW – 1 Jirwa Devi, the informant in this case, PW – 2 Mohan Sao, PW – 3 Puran Mandal, PW – 4 Amiya Devi, PW – 5 Dr. Ashok Kumar, PW – 6 Vijay Kumar Sinha, a formal witness, who proved the Fardbayan. Apart from that, the prosecution also exhibited the following documents, which are Ext-1 and Ext 1/1, the Injury report of injured PW – 1 and PW – 2, Ext. 2 is Fardbayan. No witness has been examined on behalf of the defence and after closure of the evidence, statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. where they claimed themselves to be innocent.

9. Heard learned defence counsel Mr. Yogesh Modi appearing on behalf of the appellants, learned APP Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel Mr. P.K. 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1127 of 2003 Mukhopadhyay appearing on behalf of the informant.

10. Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that he does not argue this case on merit in view of the fact that the compromise between both the parties has taken place and a joint compromise petition has been filed between the parties supported by Jirwa Devi @ Jirva Devi, who is the informant in the present case, being I.A. No.4703 of 2022, in which, it has been stated that both the parties do not want to proceed further in this case and they have settled their disputes outside the Court and jointly praying that let this appeal be allowed to be compounded and the appellants be acquitted from the offences, under which, they have been convicted. It has been jointly submitted that the informant Jirwa Devi PW – 1 is the own aunt of appellant No.2 and the deceased appellant Jibalal Sao and in the recent past, the informant Jirwa Devi has settled their disputes with appellants outside the Court and hence they come forward to file this interlocutory application as joint compromise petition with the surviving appellants Teklal Sao, Baleshwar Sao and Jargarnath Sao, who are kith and kin and due to the intervention of the well-wishers and close relatives of the parties, the parties have settled their disputes once and for all and as such, the informant does not want to proceed with the case against the appellants.

11. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants and the informant have relied upon the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard that even if the offence is not compoundable within the meaning of section 320 of the Cr.P.C. , but taking into consideration that it is a dispute of personal nature between the parties and they have settled their disputes once and for all and they wanted to live peacefully and harmoniously in life, the Court may consider to allow the matter to be compounded for the ends of justice. The Rulings relied upon are as follows:-