Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 701 (PAT)

Ramjee Thakur v. State of Bihar

2013-06-26

AKHILESH CHANDRA

body2013
ORAL JUDGMENT 1. None turned up on behalf of the appellant. Similar was the position earlier also. 2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3. Under the circumstances, this court left with no other option but either to appoint Amicus Curiae to represent the interest of the appellants, but there is general experience that such process takes much time and the court’s burden are not reduced or to proceed without any such representation, taking into consideration the latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2013(2) PLJR 276 (SC). It is thought proper to hear learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and to examine the record and Lower Court Records and decide the appeal on its own merit. 4. This is an appeal preferred against order of acquittal passed in Cr. Appeal No. 22/2001 by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Banka, dated 17.12.2003 arising out of Judgment dated 3.2.2001 passed in C-43/02/Tr.No.369/01. 5. As it appears that Complaint Case No. C43/2002 was preferred by the appellant against five persons who faced the trial for the offences under section 147, 148, 452, 323, 380 of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately vide order dated 3rd February 2001 passed by Sri Keshari Nandan Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Banka, appellants were convicted only for the offences under sections 147, 452, 504, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently sentenced to undergo for a year for the offences under section 147, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and six months for the offence under section 323 I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 6. While allowing the SLP one point appears failed to consider the circumstances under which the Lower Appellate Court accepted the compromise petition said to have been filed by the parties during trial but not pressed. 7. 6. While allowing the SLP one point appears failed to consider the circumstances under which the Lower Appellate Court accepted the compromise petition said to have been filed by the parties during trial but not pressed. 7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by learned Additional Public Prosecutor and emerging from perusal of the record it appears that Lower Appellate Court has accepted the compromise only for the offences under sections 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code which are compoundable, even without permission of the court and once petition for compromise is filed which remained un-objected and that apart charge under section 323 of I.P.C. was not acceptable as per finding of the Lower Appellate Court who appears has committed no error in accepting the compromise. The court below has further elaborately considered the material as regard to the offences under Sections 147 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, rightly finding them not acceptable ordered acquittal which needs no interference. 8. Hence, finding no merit in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed.