1.Pawan Kumar Raut 2.Chandan Kumar Raut 3.Kundan Kumar Raut 4.Amit Kumar Raut v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 661 of 2007 --------- 1.Pawan Kumar Raut 2.Chandan Kumar Raut 3.Kundan Kumar Raut 4.Amit Kumar Raut ..… Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellants : Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kr. Ravidas, Advocate For the State For the Informant : Mr. Shahid Yunus, Advocate : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. ---------- ORAL JUDGMENT IN COURT 06/11.06.2024 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.06.2007 passed in
Legal Reasoning
Sessions Case No. 07 of 2006 by Shri Alok Kr. Dubey, learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Dumka, by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 324/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years, however, the learned Court below have acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.06.2005, at about 12 O’clock, the Informant came to R.C.H. Office from Jama P.H.C. with report on Malaria to deposit the same, and after completion of the work he was returning home. As he reached in 1 front of the house of Yogendra Nath Mandal, then Pawan Kumar Raut, Sarla @ Chandan Raut, Kundan Kr. Raut and Amit Raut came from behind and assaulted him. Pawan Kumar gave him knife blow near his left eye causing injury. Kundan Kumar assaulted him by iron rod on back portion of his head. Then he fell down from the bicycle. Rest of the accused assaulted him by Lathi. The cause of occurrence is old enmity and on alarm raised by him, nearby people-Mahesh Kumar Mandal, Amrikh Kumar Sharma, Panchanand Mistri, Niwas Mandal arrived there and pacified the situation. With the help of Niwas Mandal, i.e. his brother, he was brought to Sadar Hospital, Dumka for treatment. On this information, Dumka (T) P.S. Case No. 130/05 under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 of the I.P.C. was instituted. 3. It transpires that the F.I.R. was lodged against the appellants on 23.06.2005 under Sections 147/148/149/341/323/324/ 307 I.P.C. and the chargesheet was submitted against the appellants under Sections 341/323/324/307/34 of the I.P.C. on 21.07.2005 before the learned C.J.M., Dumka and the learned C.J.M. took cognizance under Section 323/324/307/34 I.P.C. against the appellants. 4. After supplying the police papers to the accused persons, the charges were framed against the appellants for the offence under Sections 324/34 and 2 307/34 of the I.P.C. by the learned Addl. D.J.-F.T.C.-III, Dumka, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. It transpires that the prosecution had examined Six (06) witnesses in support of its case and has got proved certain documents as exhibits, i.e. Ext.1, Ext.2, Ext.2/1, Ext.2/2 and Ext.3 respectively to prove its case. 6. Thereafter, the learned Court below has convicted the appellants for the offences under Section 324/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three years each. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant. 8. I.A. (Cr.) No.11087 of 2022 has been filed by way of the joint compromise petition on behalf of the appellants and the informant on 01.12.2022. 9. Paragraph No.s 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the I.A. (Cr.) No.11087 of 2022 read as follows:- “Para 4:- That the appellants and informant are the neighbors and they were having petty issues and good sense prevail to resolve their dispute for the future peace and harmony between both the families. Para 5:-That it is further stated that both the parties are known to each other and with the intervention of family, friends and relatives wants to amicably resolve their disputes. 3 Para 6:- That the joint compromise Petition is being concluded between the parties voluntarily and without any pressure and coercion. Para 7:- That due to amicable settlement between the parties the informant is ready to not pursue his case. Para 8:- That the alleged offence under section 324 of IPC was compoundable in nature prior to the amendment of 2005 and this amendment came into force only on 2006 in which the section 324 was made non-compoundable and therefore, under Article 20 (i) of the Indian constitution, Ex-post facto law will not be applied in the petitioner’s case. Para 9:- That there are catena of Supreme Court judgments (Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303, Narinder Singh vs State of Punjab & ors 2014 (6) SCC 466, CBI vs Maninder Singh 2016(1) SCC 389 in which Hon’ble Court pleased to quash the matter on the basis of the settlement between the parties, which is purely private in nature (including the offences which are non compoundable in nature) at any stage. Para 10:- That the appellant’s case is also in better footing and it has been amicably settled between the parties where under the appellants undertake not to create any dispute quarrel, assault etc. with the respondent No.2 in future either any place or his house. 4 Para 11:- That the appellants and informant undertakes that they will abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court. 10. It has been held in the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, at paragraph nos.29.6, 31 and 33 as follows: to examine as “Para 29.6:- Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the 5 the petition, Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. Para 31:- In the present case, FIR No.121 dated 14-07-2010 was registered under Sections investigation was IPC. The 307/324/323/34 completed, whereafter challan was presented in the court against the petitioner herein. Charges have also been framed; the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. At this juncture, parties entered into compromise on the basis of which petition under Section 482 of the Coe was filed by the petitioners, namely, the accused persons for quashing of the criminal proceedings under the said FIR. As per the copy of the settlement which the was annexed along with compromise took place between the parties on 12- 7-2013 when respectable members of the Gram Panchayat held a meeting under the chairmanship of Sarpanch. It is stated that on the intervention of the said persons/panchayat, both the parties were agreed for compromise and have also decided to live with peace in future with each other. It was argued that since the parties have decided to keep harmony between the parties so that in future they are able to live with peace and love and they are the residents of the same village, the High Court should have accepted the said compromise and quashed the proceedings. Para 33:- We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that he complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute, etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz. “respectable persons have been trying for a compromise uptil 6 into these now, which could not be finalized”. …………… We, consideration factors taking all cumulatively, are of the opinion that that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14-7-2010 registered with Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly.” 11. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the Injury Report of the Informant, namely Dinesh Chandra Mandal, which was proved by Dr. Dilip Kumar Bhagat, who was examined as P.W.1 and the Injury Report reads as follows: 1. One lacerated wound above left eye Size 2” X 1” X ½” 2.One lacerated wound over scalp in back portion 1” X 1” X ½” 3.One lacerated wound on right leg ½” X ½” X ½” . 4.Pain and small swelling over both knees. But there was no fracture. All the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. It transpires from the Injury Report that the injury sustained by the Informant were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance and there was no fracture. 12. It appears that the appellants and the Informant have compromised the case. 13. It further appears that the appellants and the Informant have signed the joint compromise petition and filed their respective affidavits, which has been signed by Mr. Ranjan Kumar Ravidas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also by Mrs. Rup Kamal, learned 7 counsel for the Informant respectively. Mr. Sahid Yunus, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the Informant and has also supported the factum of compromise. 14. Learned counsel for the State has also raised no objection. 15. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the fact that the parties have compromised the case and filed joint compromise petition to that effect, judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.06.2007 passed in Sessions Case No. 07 of 2006 by Shri Alok Kr. Dubey, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Dumka against the appellants, namely Pawan Kumar Raut, Chandan Kumar Raut, Kundan Kumar Raut, Amit Kumar Raut, is hereby set aside and the appellants, namely Pawan Kumar Raut, Chandan Kumar Raut, Kundan Kumar Raut and Amit Kumar Raut are acquitted of the charges under Section 324/34 and are discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds. 16. Thus, this Cr. Appl (S.J) No. 661 of 2007 is allowed. Let the entire Original Lower Court Records be sent to the learned Court below at once. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 11th June, 2024 N.A.F.R./s.m. 8