Research › Browse › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 34 (GUJ)

PRATAPSINH BHIMSING PARMAR v. STATE

1996-01-19

D.G.KARIA

body1996
D. G. KARIA, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. K. P. Raval, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, who is the original accused in Sessions Case No. 114 of 1986 of the Sessions Court, Bharuch, and at present the appellant of Criminal Appeal no. 115 of 1988, pending in this Court, has prayed for necessary permission under s. 320 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to compound the offence, as provided in S. 320 (4) (b) of the Code, as the same is in the interest of the parties. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-accused was tried for the offence punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the aforesaid Sessions Case by the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge at Bharuch. The prosecution case is that the incident took place on march 17, 1986 between 2-00 to 3-00 p. m. in the sim of village Vedach and in the said incident, the deceased, Jatashankar Ravishankar, was alleged to be given stick blows by the accused. It is the further case of the prosecution that the stick blows were inflicted on shoulders and back portion as well as on the thigh of the deceased Jatashankar. It transpires from the record that the deceased was not taken for any medical treatment, after the said beating. Nor any complaint was lodged with regard to the said incident. The accused was the teacher in the village at the relevant time. The prosecution case is that after about 3 to 4 days since the occurrence of the incident, the condition of deceased Jatashankar became serious and hence he was taken to Vedach Police Station and eventually the complaint was lodged on 21/03/1986 for the offence under S. 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, deceased Jatashankar was taken to Referal Hospital, Jambusar, for treatment where he succumbed to the injuries in the evening of 21/03/1986. Post-mortem examination was conducted wherein it was found that there were four injuries of wheel marks. On internal examination, it was revealed that there was Pneumothorax due to laceration of lung. ( 4 ) THE learned Addl. Thereafter, deceased Jatashankar was taken to Referal Hospital, Jambusar, for treatment where he succumbed to the injuries in the evening of 21/03/1986. Post-mortem examination was conducted wherein it was found that there were four injuries of wheel marks. On internal examination, it was revealed that there was Pneumothorax due to laceration of lung. ( 4 ) THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch, on recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and on conclusion of the trial, held that the offence against the accused-petitioner was established beyond reasonable doubt and found him guilty for the offence under S. 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Addl. Sessions judge sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 700. 00, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for seven months. The accused-petitioner was acquitted of the offence under S. 302 of the Indian penal Code. ( 5 ) AGAINST the order of said conviction and sentence, the aforesaid Criminal appeal No. 115 of 1988 was preferred. It was admitted on 21-4-1988 and the appellant-petitioner was ordered to be released on bail. ( 6 ) IT appears that the incident had taken place all of a sudden. It further appears that deceased Jatashankar was mentally retarded person. It was told to him that if he wanted wheat gotar, then he might collect the same from the opposite Tekra which belonged to the petitioner-accused. The accused, on seeing the deceased jatashankar taking away the wheat gotar came there and inflicted stick blows on back and leg of the deceased Jatashankar. Under the circumstances, there could not be intention of the petitioner to cause death of the deceased, nor it could be assumed that he inflicted such stick blows with a knowledge that he would cause such injury which would result in death of the deceased. In fact, no complaint was lodged for murder on the date of the incident and the complaint lodged later on, i. e. , after about 5 days was for the offence punishable under S. 323 of the Indian Penal code. ( 7 ) IT appears from the medical evidence on record that there was no fracture of any of the ribs noticed at the time of post-mortem examination. Thus, considering the nature of external injury, the Medical Officer found that they were simple injuries. The learned Addl. ( 7 ) IT appears from the medical evidence on record that there was no fracture of any of the ribs noticed at the time of post-mortem examination. Thus, considering the nature of external injury, the Medical Officer found that they were simple injuries. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, considering the evidence and circumstances of the case, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under S. 325 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 8 ) THE State did not prefer any appeal against the order of acquittal for the offence under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 9 ) THE parties have now settled the matter. Settlement dated 17/01/1996, duly signed by the appellant as well as by the father of the deceased Jatashankar, is produced on the record. The witnesses have also attested the signatures of both the said persons. The settlement is taken on record. The aforesaid offence under S. 325 of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable with the permission of the Court, as contemplated in sub-S. (2) of S. 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Person by whom the said offence may be compounded is the person to whom the hurt is caused. Unfortunately, the deceased Jatashankar Ravishankar, who was hurt in the incident, does not survive. Therefore, his father, Ravishankar Dalsukhram Bhatt, has compounded the said offence. By virtue of clause (b) of sub-S. (4) of S. 320 of the Code, when the person who would otherwise be competent to compound the offence under the section is dead, the legal representative, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or such person may, with the consent of the Court, compound such offence. Undoubtedly, father of the deceased is the legal representative of the deceased Jatashankar. By this application, the consent of this Court is sought for compounding the offence under S. 320 of the Code. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the sanction is accorded to compound the said offence. ( 10 ) IN view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and articularly in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused-petitioner-appellant Pratapsinh Bhimsinh Parmar, for the offence under S. 325 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch, are hereby ordered to be quashed. Bail-bonds of the accusedappellant-petitioner shall stand cancelled. Sessions Judge, Bharuch, are hereby ordered to be quashed. Bail-bonds of the accusedappellant-petitioner shall stand cancelled. Fine, if paid, is ordered to be refunded to him. Rule made absolute accordingly in the Misc. Criminal Application. Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1988 also stands disposed of. .