Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1334 (RAJ)

Narsingh Lal @ Narsingh Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-05

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.- By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"), the petitioners have challenged the Judgment dated 27.05.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali (for short, "the appellate Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 33/99, by which the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and maintained the Judgment and order dated 011.1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 173/1984, whereby the trial Court convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 427 and 447, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 147, IPC; one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 427, IPC; and three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 447, IPC. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The facts of the case, relevant and necessary for decision of this revision petition, are that complainant Mohan Raj, being power of attorney-holder of Smt. Santosh Kanwar, filed a complaint before the trial Court stating therein that Santosh Kanwar had purchased a plot from Milap Chandra under the registered sale deed dated 20.05.1982. It was alleged in the complaint that on 25.06.1982, the petitioners, alongwith one Chhoga and Puna, came at the site and started removing the plinth, pillars and stone-slabs. The complaint was sent to the Police Station, Sumerpur for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record and hearing the arguments, vide Judgment and order dated 011.1995, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The accused-petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court, which has been dismissed vide impugned Judgment dated 27.05.2002 and aggrieved with the impugned Judgment , the petitioners have preferred this criminal revision. 3. The accused-petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court, which has been dismissed vide impugned Judgment dated 27.05.2002 and aggrieved with the impugned Judgment , the petitioners have preferred this criminal revision. 3. On 02.09.2004, a compromise has been filed by the parties before this Court stating therein that the parties have compounded the offences. The parties have been identified by their Counsel and the compromise has been verified by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. 4. As per the Table appended to Section 320 of the Code, the offences punishable under Section 427 and 447, IPC are compoundable by the person to whom the loss or damage is caused and by the person in possession of the property trespassed upon. Thus, the complainant is the person competent to compound these offences. Sub-section (6) of Section 320 of the Code provides that a High Court or Court of session acting in the exercise of its power to revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section. Sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Code further provides that composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. In view of the provision of Sub-Section (6) of Section 320 of the Code, the parties are permitted to compound the offences punishable under Section 427 and 447, IPC, and , therefore, the petitioners deserve to be acquitted of these offencs on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 5. So for as the offence under Section 147, IPC, is concerned, as per Section 320, CrPC, this offence is not compoundable. In Bhupendra Singh & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 751, the Honble Supreme Court, while altering the conviction under Section 307 read with Section 147, IPC, to that under Section 324, IPC, granted permission to the parties to compound the offence in view of happy relationship established in the student community. 6. In the instant case, the parties have arrived at the compromise for compounding the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, and 147, IPC. Except the offence punishable under Section 147, IPC, the remaining offences punishable under Section 427 and 447, IPC, have been permitted, by this order, to be compounded. So. 6. In the instant case, the parties have arrived at the compromise for compounding the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, and 147, IPC. Except the offence punishable under Section 147, IPC, the remaining offences punishable under Section 427 and 447, IPC, have been permitted, by this order, to be compounded. So. far as the offence punishable under Section 147, IPC, is concerned, it is not compoundable in view of the provision of Section 320 of the Code. The petitioners have been sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 147, IPC. However, since the parties have settled their dispute and compounded the offences, the interest of justice would be met if the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioners for the offence under Section 147, IPC, is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them and the fine is reduced to Rs. 200/-each, in default of payment of fine the petitioners shall undergo imprisonment for seven days. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The petitioners are acquitted of the offences under Section 427 and 447, IPC, on these offences having been compounded. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 147, IPC, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to them is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them and the sentence of fine is reduced to Rs. 200/-each, in default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo imprisonment for seven days. The petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.