Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 98 (MP)

Radhu @ Radhshyam v. State of M. P.

2020-01-16

ROHIT ARYA

body2020
ORDER 1. Let appellants and complainant shall remain present before the Principal Registrar of this Court for recording the statements and verification of contents of IA No. 7980/2019; compromise application, IA No. 7981/2019, an application filed under section 320(2) CrPC and IA No. 7982/2019, an application filed under section 320(5) CrPC 2. Call out at 3:30pm. Later on, At 3:30, case is taken up. Parties as before. 1. Compromise entered into between the parties has been placed on record by the Principal Registrar and the same is recorded. 2. This criminal appeal is filed under section 14(A)(1) of SC and ST Act against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.2.2018 passed by Special Judge (SC and ST) Act, Mandleswar in S.T. (Atrocities) No. 75/2015 convicting appellant No. 1-Radhu @ Radheshyam under section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and appellant No. 2 under section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and under section 3(1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation respectively. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The facts of the case have been detailed in the impugned judgment by the Trial Court, hence, this Court does not want to repeat the same overall again. However, briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 30.9.2015 around 2 pm, appellants/ accused hurled abuses by caste against the complainant and also threatened to kill her. The complainant lodged FIR registered at Police Station Ajak, District-Khargone at Crime No. 4/2015 against the appellants for offence under section 294, 323/34, 506 (part_II) of IPC and section 3(1)(10) of SC and ST Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants in the light of compromise entered into between the parties vide I.A. Nos. 7980/2019, 7981/2019 and 7982/2019, application u/S 320,320(2) r/w sections 482 of CrPC and 320(5) r/w section 482 CrPC for compounding the offfences punishable u/Ss. 294, 323/34, 506 (part-II) of IPC and section 3(1)(10) of SC and ST Act stated that parties have amicably settled their disputes and accordingly they may be allowed to compound the indicated offence, therefore, the accused/ appellants may be acquitted of the alleged charges. 5. 294, 323/34, 506 (part-II) of IPC and section 3(1)(10) of SC and ST Act stated that parties have amicably settled their disputes and accordingly they may be allowed to compound the indicated offence, therefore, the accused/ appellants may be acquitted of the alleged charges. 5. The factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar who has recorded the statements of both the parties on 16.1.2020 and submitted a report that parties have entered into compromise without any fear or coercion as they have amicably resolved all their disputes and want to live in peace and harmony. 6. In the present case the incident had taken place in the year 2015 and the appellants had already suffered the agony during pendency of the proceedings. The appellants are women. The parties have compromised the matter. Under these circumstances, the ends of justice would be sub-served, if the jail sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them (i.e. from 29.10.2015 to 30.10.2015 and from the date of judgment till the grant of bail on 27.2.2018) with fine as imposed by the Court below. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal deserves to be and is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant No. 1-Radhu Bai for the offence under section 323/34 of IPC and appellant No. 2-Manju Bai under section 323/34 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST Act passed by the trial Court are hereby affirmed but, the sentences are set aside and instead thereof, the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them in jail with fine as imposed by the Court below. The appellants are on bail, therefore, they be set at liberty (if not required in any other criminal case. 8. With the aforesaid modification, appeal stands allowed and disposed of. 9. A copy of this judgment be set to the trial Court for necessary compliance.