Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 683 (JHR)

Suresh Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand

2022-06-17

NAVNEET KUMAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction and 3rd order of sentence 29.03.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-FTC, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.414 of 2001 / 14 of 2005, arising out of Bindapather P.S. Case No.27 of 2001, corresponding to G.R. No.107 of 2001, whereby and where under the sole appellant is found guilty for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs.500/-and in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months. 2. The prosecution case arose in the wake of statement of the victim PW – 3 which was recorded by S.I. S.K. Sinha of Bindapather P.S. on 12.03.2001 at 9:30 a.m. in brief is that- On 11.03.2001 at about 8 pm night, she was preparing food in her kitchen. Her two children were sleeping and her husband had gone to the village shop, when the accused/appellant entered into her house after opening the door of her court yard and put off the lantern, started teasing the informant with an intention to rape. The accused firstly caught her and pressed her chest and lifted her saree and threw her over the earth and thereafter any how she saved herself and then he assaulted on her thigh. Then the informant raised the alarm, thereupon her two children woke up and they started crying. It is also alleged in the fardbayan that upon crying of her children, the accused fled away. On being heard, the cry of her children and informant, her husband and villagers arrived and they came to know regarding the incident. The informant claimed that the accused appellant had entered into her house with an intention to commit rape with her. 3. On the basis of the fardbebyanof the informant, Nala (Bindapather) P.S. Case No.27 of 2001 has been instituted and after investigation, police submitted the charge sheet against the accused u/s 376 & 511 of IPC and after submission of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions and the charge against the accused was framed on 13.05.2002 by the court of Sessions u/s 376 & 511 of IPC and the learned trial court after conducting the trial, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge. 4. 4. Heard learned defence counsel Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary appearing on behalf of the sole appellant, learned APP Azzemuddin appearing on behalf of the State and learned Counsel Mr. Sambhunath Tiwari appearing on behalf of the informant. 5. The Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant jointly submitted that one I.A. No.4945 of 2022 has been filed jointly by the appellant and the victim PW – 3 in view of the fact that a compromise has taken place between both the parties. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that he does not want to argue this case on merit in view of the fact that a compromise has taken place between both of them. It has further been pointed out jointly that both the parties are agnates and residing in the same village and during the pendency of the present appeal, they have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court by intervention of well-wishers and co-villagers. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant and informant PW – 3 jointly submitted that on the alleged year of the occurrence, i.e. in the year 2001, Section 354 of IPC, under which, the sole appellant was convicted is compoundable in nature and comes within the purview of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., by which, both the parties have compromised the matter. Further, it has been pointed out that the alleged occurrence was as far back of the year 2001, i.e. 20 years back and the appellant is suffering the trauma and misery of the criminal proceeding for a long period of time and now they have amicably settled their disputes through compromise and settlement and therefore it is urged by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant and informant PW -3 that let this appeal be allowed and offence charged against the accused appellant be compounded. 6. 6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State contended that the appellant was convicted under Section 354 of IPC, which was compoundable in nature in the year 2001 and therefore under the circumstances of this case, when both the parties have settled their disputes once and for all, let this appeal be allowed as compounded in view of the joint compromise petition by virtue of I.A. No.4945 of 2022 filed jointly by the appellant and the victim PW – 3. 7. Having taking into consideration the fact and circumstances, it is found that the sole appellant after conviction for the offence under Section 354 of IPC, was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs.500/-and in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months. Now the I.A. has been filed jointly by the appellant and the victim PW – 3 by the intervention of well-wishers and co-villagers. It is also manifest that in arriving the compromise and settlement, there is no any coercion or pressure from any corner and both the parties voluntarily and wilfully compromised the matter. This Court is mindful of the fact that section 354 of the IPC is, as of today, non-compoundable. But, as noticed by this Court, it was compoundable when instant offence was committed with the permission of this Court. This Court is of the opinion that since the appellant and the victim P.W.3 are related to each other and they are living peacefully it would in the interest of justice to permit the parties to compound the offences. If the conviction is confirmed the relations may get strained and the peace which is now prevailing between the parties may be disturbed. Therefore in order to accord quietus to the disputes between the appellant and the P.W.3 in the light of compromise and settlement arrived at between the parties and the contentions raised by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, it is found a fit case in the larger interest of peace where the appeal may be allowed as compounded and the offence punishable under section 354 of the IPC is allowed to be compounded on the basis of compromise and settlement. 8. 8. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed to be compounded and the impugned Judgment of Conviction and order 3rd of sentence dated 29.03.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-FTC, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.414 of 2001 / 14 of 2005, arising out of Bindapather P.S. Case No.27 of 2001, corresponding to G.R. No.107 of 2001 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charge levelled against him. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed as compounded. 10. Accordingly the I.A. No.4945 of 2022 also gets disposed of. 11. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith to the concerned court below.