Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 95 (CHH)

DHANESH KUMAR SAHU v. STATE OF C. G.

2006-02-16

D.R.DESHMUKH

body2006
ORDER l. This Revision is directed against the judgment dated 28-11-2005 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 243/2005 where by the Sessions Judge, Raipur has dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment delivered by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 1784/2002 convicting the applicant under Section-326lPC and awarding sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- 2. In this Revision, an application has been field under Section-482 of Cr.P.C. by the complainant Baratu Ram Sahu on the ground that a compromise has been affected with the accused who is his real brother and there for appropriate orders under Section-482 of Cr.P.C. should be passed. Along with the said application, an application for compromise has also been filed by the complainant Baratu Ram Sahu which is duly supported by an affidavit. The complainant Baratu Ram Sahu, whose nose was disfigured by the accused-applicant, is present in the Court today and he is identified by Shri S.C. Verma, Advocate. On being asked, the complainant Baratu Ram Sahu states that accused who is hid real brother has bit his nose, on a sudden quarrel. He further submitted that a compromise has been affected between the parties and good relation prevail between them. 3. Shri Y.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Ram Lal Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ishaque @ totalitya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in support of his contention that in view of the compromise affected between real brothers and the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence awarded to the applicant be reduced. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 10-7-2002 at about 9.30 P.M. upon a family dispute, a quarrel ensued between the complainant Baratu Ram Sahu and his elder brother i.e. accused/applicant Dhanesh Kumar Sahu. During the quarrel, Dhanesh Kumar Sahu bit his nose with his teeth due to which the left frontal portion of the nostril was separated. 5. 8hri Y.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he does not assail the impugned judgment on merits and would press this revision only on the question of sentence. He contended that the incident was an offshoot of a sudden quarrel and upon a family dispute between the real brothers in which the accused-applicant bit the nose of his younger brother Baratu Ram Sahu. He contended that the incident was an offshoot of a sudden quarrel and upon a family dispute between the real brothers in which the accused-applicant bit the nose of his younger brother Baratu Ram Sahu. Relying on the Aforesaid citations, he argued that considering the fact that the applicant has suffered incarceration during trial from 13-8-2002 to 26-8-2004 i.e. for 14 days and thereafter from 28-11-2005 till date i.e. for a period of about 2 months & 19 days the sentence awarded be reduced to sentence already undergone. 6. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State has opposed the prayer while contending that due to grievous injury caused by the accused-applicant as a result of biting with his teeth, there has been disfiguration of the face of the complainant Baratu Ram Sahu. The sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge is therefore adequate. It was also contended that in case, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded was considered to be reduced, adequate compensation should be awarded to the complainant Baratu Ram Sahu for the permanent disfiguration of the nose suffered by him. 7. Having heard rival contentions, I have perused the record of Criminal Appeal No. 243/2005.1 have also gone through the citations relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant. In Ram Lal Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir!, the accused was convicted under Section-326 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and another co-accused had been convicted under Sectfon-324 of IPC and was sentenced to R.I. for 2 years. The application for compounding the offence was filed, which was dismissed since Section-326 IPC was not compoundable. However, considering the fact that the parties had come to a settlement and the victim had no grievance and also the fact that the first appellant had already undergone sentence for a period of 6 months, a lenient view was taken and sentence awarded was reduced to period which the first appellant Ram lal Sahu had undergone. In Ishaque @ totaliya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh also while dismissing the application for compounding the offence under Section 326 IPC, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh considered the changed circumstances and the fact that the relationship between the accused and the complainant had become cordial and while maintaining the conviction of the appellant and imposition of fine, the sentences awarded was reduced to already undergone. In that case, the appellant had already undergone jail sentence for a period of 2 & 1/2, months. 8. The complainant Baratu Ram Sahu who was present in the Court today, has stated that the relationship with his elder brother has become cordial as he has forgiven him. On perusal of the record of Criminal Case No. 1784/2002 it shows that the act of the accused was not pre-mediated but was committed upon a sudden quarrel. The accused-applicant and the complainant are real brothers. In view of the settlement arrived at between them and for maintaining cordiality of relationship and also relying upon the case law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant in my considered opinion, it is a fit case in which the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-applicant under Section- 326 IPC be reduced to period already undergone by the accused-applicant. The sentence of fine imposed on the applicant calls for no interference. 9. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under Section- 326 IPC is maintained. In view of the cordial relationship between the accused-applicant and the complainant Baratu Ram Sahu and the fact of compromise between the parties, the substantive sentence of imprisonment already awarded to the applicant, is reduced to sentence already undergone by the accused applicant. The sentence of fine imposed, is however maintained. Application Allowed.