Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 616 (JHR)

Sheoshanker Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2017-04-03

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : R. Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 03.01.2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1997 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.12.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chas, Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 27B/1991 (T.R. No. 154/1996) by which the petitioner was convicted for offences punishable u/s 323, 341 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month and S.I. for three months has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story as would appear from the First Information Report is that the informant was scolding her children which was mistaken by the petitioner that the informant was abusing them, had pulled her out of her house and has also assaulted her with fists and slaps. The daughter of the informant was also assaulted when she had tried to intervene. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation G.R. Case No. 27B/1991 was instituted. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and on taking of cognizance charge was framed u/s 323, 341, 448 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded. The learned trial court having found the petitioner guilty had convicted him for the offences punishable u/s 323, 341 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly which was subsequently affirmed in Cr. Appeal No. 5 of 1997 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas vide judgment dated 03.01.2001. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the witnesses had supported the prosecution case. It has been submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined which had caused prejudice to the defence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a joint compromise petition was filed before the learned appellate court, since the offence is compoundable in nature but without taking into consideration the said compromise petition the judgment of conviction and sentence has been affirmed. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayed made by the petitioner. 7. In course of trial six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayed made by the petitioner. 7. In course of trial six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 (Lila Singh) is the informant who had clearly stated about the manner of assault committed by the petitioner which has also been supported by her daughter P.W.4 (Rekha Kumari). P.W.2 (Manti Devi) and P.W.3 (Lal deep Paswan) who are the next door neighbours of the informant. P.W.5 is the Doctor who had examined the informant and had found certain injuries on her person. P.W.6 is a formal witness. The defence had examined one witness namely Bhola Prasad. 8. It appears that on 06.12.2000 a joint petition for compromise was filed before the learned appellate court. The filing of the joint compromise petition has been recorded in the order dated 20.12.2000 and after hearing the case was ordered to be listed on 03.01.2000 on which date the judgment and order of conviction and sentence was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. The learned appellate court has not even mentioned in the judgment about the compromise petition which had been filed by the petitioner. The learned court below although had conducted a hearing on the said compromise petition but no mention has been made about the same. 9. It appears that the petitioner had been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 323, 341 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code which is compoundable in nature and some of the Sections are compoundable with the permission of the Court. Since the dispute between both the sides seems to have been settled as would be evident from the joint compromise petition so filed, the same ought to have been considered by the learned appellate court. The compromise petition further reveals that both the parties were signatories to the said petition. The appeal could have been disposed of based on the compromise which had been arrived at between the parties, since the offence was compoundable in nature. The learned appellate court thus had committed a serious error of law which needs to be rectified by this Court. 10. The appeal could have been disposed of based on the compromise which had been arrived at between the parties, since the offence was compoundable in nature. The learned appellate court thus had committed a serious error of law which needs to be rectified by this Court. 10. In such circumstances, therefore, without entering into the merits of the case the petitioner and the informant are allowed to compound the offences and this application therefore stands allowed on the basis of the compromise between the parties and the impugned judgment dated 03.01.2001 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1997 and judgment dated 16.12.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chas, Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 27B/1991 (T.R. No. 154/1996), are hereby, set aside. 11. The petitioner is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. This application stands allowed.