BENCH AT JAIPUR v. Mr. Krishna Kumar, Mr. Kushal, Mr. Santosh Kumar & Mr. Sanjeev Kumar

: Mr. Rinesh Gupta, Adv. with Mr. Sarwat Alam, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar, Mr. Kushal, Mr. Santosh Kumar & Mr. Sanjeev Kumar (appellants present in person) For Respondent : Ms. Arti Sharma, Dy.G.A. Mr. Anoop Meena, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. (for the complainant) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 09/05/2025

1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the accused- appellants challenging the judgment dated 19.09.1995 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hindauncity, District Sawaimadhopur (hereinafter referred to as learned 'trial Court') in Sessions Case No.344/1992 whereby all the accused- appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:19963] (2 of 6) [CRLA-492/1995] Sr. No. Name of Accused- Appellant Offences punishable Section Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine

1. Krishna Kumar 307 IPC 5 Years' R.I. Rs.500/- One 148 IPC 1 Year's R.I. - month's R.I. One month' R.I. IPC IPC IPC 3 Years' R.I. Rs.300/- One month's R.I. 2 Years' R.I. Rs.200/- One 6 Months' R.I. - month's R.I. One month's R.I. -

2. (1) Mangi Lal 148 IPC 1 Year's R.I. - (2) Kushal (3) Sanjeev Kumar IPC IPC IPC 3 Years' R.I. Rs.300/- - 2 Years' R.I. Rs.200/- - 6 Months' R.I. -

3. Santosh Kumar 148 IPC 1 Year's R.I. - - - 326 IPC 3 Years' R.I. Rs.300/- - IPC IPC 2 Years' R.I. Rs.200/- - 6 Months' R.I. - -

2. Vide order dated 10.03.2017, learned Coordinate Bench of this Court abated the present appeal to the extent of the accused- appellant-Mangilal, as he expired during the pendency of this appeal.

3. A criminal case for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326 and 307 of IPC was registered [2025:RJ-JP:19963] (3 of 6) [CRLA-492/1995] against the accused-appellants and after investigation, charge- sheet against the accused-appellants was filed.

4. The charges were explained to the accused-appellants and they pleaded not guilty and resultantly, they were committed to trial.

5. During course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and 15 documents were exhibited before learned trial Court. The accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

6. After hearing both the parties, vide impugned judgment dated 19.09.1995, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced all the accused-appellants as aforesaid. Hence, the present criminal appeal was filed.

7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that the accused-appellants do not want to challenge the finding of conviction for the aforesaid offences against the accused-appellants. However, as the occurrence relates to the year 1991; this appeal is pending since 1995; the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the accused-appellants have suffered the agony of trial and appeal for more than 35 years. However, it has also been submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the length of period of trial and appeal, a liberal view be taken against the accused- appellants and the sentence awarded to them by learned trial Court as aforesaid may be reduced and may be modified to the extent of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the accused-appellants. [2025:RJ-JP:19963] (4 of 6) [CRLA-492/1995]

8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the accused-appellants placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Naib Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1986) 4 SCC 401.

9. Mr. Anoop Meena, Adv. puts appearance on behalf of Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. as learned counsel appearing for the complainant and admitted the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties.

10. Learned Deputy Government Advocate opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused-appellants.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material made available on record.

12. On 09.04.2025, the accused-appellants and the complainants/injured persons were personally present before this Court and were duly identified by their respective learned counsel and both the parties jointly submitted the compromise deed, which was duly signed by them.

13. Learned counsel submitted that the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC are compoundable, therefore, the accused-appellants are liable to be acquitted for the said offences on the basis of the compromise deed.

14. Undisputedly, the occurrence of this case relates to the year 1991 and the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced by learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment dated

19.09.1995 as aforesaid and this appeal is pending since 1995.

15. In view of the aforesaid discussions and considering the fact that both the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them and have arrived at compromise, the prayer made on behalf [2025:RJ-JP:19963] (5 of 6) [CRLA-492/1995] of the accused-appellants is accepted and the present appeal is partly allowed qua the accused-appellants. While maintaining the conviction of the accused-appellant-Krishna Kumar for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 148 and 326 read with 149 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him is ordered to be reduced and modified to the extent of sentence already undergone by him. However, the amount of fine is hereby maintained.

16. So far as the other accused-appellants namely Kushal, Sanjeev Kumar and Santosh Kumar are concerned, they have been initially given the benefit of anticipatory bail and as the maximum sentence awarded for their conviction was upto three years and the same was suspended by learned trial Court and also by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on filing of this appeal, therefore, these three accused-appellants have never undergone their sentence and were on bail during trial and appeal.

17. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case; the fact that both the parties have arrived at compromise and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Naib Singh (supra), the present appeal is partly allowed qua the accused-appellants namely Kushal, Sanjeev Kumar and Santosh Kumar. While maintaining the conviction of the accused-appellants namely Kushal, Sanjeev and Santosh Kumar for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 148 and 326 read with 149 of IPC, the sentence awarded to them as aforesaid is reduced to, till rising of the Court. However, the amount of fine as ordered by learned trial Court is hereby maintained.

18. It is ordered that the amount of fine shall be deposited by each of the accused-appellant before learned trial Court within a [2025:RJ-JP:19963] (6 of 6) [CRLA-492/1995] period of three months from passing of this order. It is also directed that in default of payment of fine by the accused- appellants, they shall undergo one month simple imprisonment.

19. Any pending applications also stand disposed of.

20. Record of the Court below be sent back immediately. AARZOO ARORA /01 (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J