JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.06.2005 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 485 of 1995 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 342 of 1995 in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 98 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable u/s 147, 323, and 324 of the I.P.C., 1860. Further they were sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. u/s 324 of I.P.C., one year R.I. u/s 147 of IPC and six months R.I. for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution story in brief as alleged in the F.I.R. coming out of the beyan of the informant/ victim recorded and reduced into writing by the Officer-in-Charge of the Garhwa P.S. B. Ram and then registered as Garhwa P.S. Cas No.- 98 of 2005, is as under: The informant Manjaha Bibi (P.W. 3) was learning the art of witchcraft from Nazir Mohammad and his daughter, resident of village Sangrahe Khurd to exhibit the application of witchcraft, she was to offer a small baby who was weaned from the mother’s milk for sacrifice and for that she had to bring a small baby of others leaving her own baby for that purpose and for which the date was scheduled to be fixed on Friday. On Friday at about 3.00 P.M. seeing an opportunity she took away neighbor Adaruddin’s son Nisar Ahmed from his house. After concealing the same from the sight of the villagers, when she reached on the bank of Koel River about 2 1/2 - 3 kilometers towards Pratapur tola Bhalahi, four boys of her village came running from behind her and caught hold of her. She went on fleeing away from them but some more villagers caught hold of her and brought her to the village Sangrahe Khurd. In the evening, Sarpanch Vindahayachal Prasad and villagers Israfil Mian, Makshud Mian, Hasanu Mian, Adaru Mian, Ismail Mian, Hamid Mian and Hanif Mian, Anwar Mian, Id Mohammad Mian of village Chamarahi convened a panchayati. In Panchayati, her hands and legs were tied. She was burnt on her both hands, both the legs and back with danda wrapped with clothes by immersing it into the heated mustard oil and gave a danda blow on her head. In Panchayati, her hands and legs were tied. She was burnt on her both hands, both the legs and back with danda wrapped with clothes by immersing it into the heated mustard oil and gave a danda blow on her head. Due to burning with heated oil, her skin was burnt and she suffered inflammation. She asked humbly with panches to hand her over to the police to face the consequence for the offences committed by her and not to cause torture to her in such a cruel manner, but, they put her in the state of restlessness for whole night with an intention to kill her and for that purpose she was tied. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of Manjaha Bibi, a formal F.I.R. was drawn by the Officer-in-Charge of the Garhwa P.S. N. Ram u/Ss. 147, 323, 324 and 307 of the I.P.C., 1860 and the investigation of the case commenced after registering the case as Garhwa P.S. Case No. 0098/95. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the accused appellants. Thereafter, the learned Court of the C.J.M., Garhwa took cognizance on the charge-sheet submitted by the I.O. and then the case was committed to the Court of Learned Session Judge, Garhwa and then the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Garhwa framed the charge on 30-05-1998 against the accused appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 147, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and trial of the case commenced. 4. The learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge. 5. Heard Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. for the State. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants 6. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidences in totality in view of the fact that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and did not take into consideration the admitted fact that the victim (P.W.3) was herself involved in kidnapping of the child and for this she was being prosecuted. Also, the learned Court did not take into consideration that the appellants and the prosecution parties are the gotias (descendants of common ancestor) and over a period of time both the parties have entered into a compromise. The learned trial court has also failed to take into consideration the fact that the victim (P.W. 3) was handed over to the appellants when she was admittedly going to sacrifice the son of Adaruddin, as admitted by P.W. 3 in the FIR, therefore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that it was an offence of kidnapping and by the alleged act of the appellants, the life of a child was saved when the informant admittedly being the culprit was handed over to the police. Therefore, the learned trial court without appreciating the evidences in totality which came during the course of trial, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is bad in law and fit to be set aside. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that there was a clear-cut proof about the assault upon the informant victim P.W. 3, who had sustained burnt injuries and she was examined by Dr. D.P. Burnwal who prepared injury report. Further, Doctor P.W. 7 - Dr. Dhirendra Kumar has proved the signature and writing of the doctor-Dr. D.P. Burnwal, on injury report which is marked as Ext. 2 and, therefore, there is no legal point to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and this appeal is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit. Appraisal & Findings 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of this case including the Lower Court Record. 9. In order to substantiate, the charges levelled against the accused appellants, the prosecution has been able to examine altogether 7 (seven) witnesses. They are : i. P.W.1 - Mazid Sheikh (declared hostile), ii. P.W.2 - Mohd. Haider Ali (declared hostile), iii. P.W.3 - Manjaha Bibi (victim/ informant), iv. P.W.4 - Mohammad Zaffar Khan (formal witness) v. P.W.5 - Tewaran Oraon (I.O.), vi. P.W.6 - Maulabi Sheikh (husband of the informant), vii. P.W.7 - Dr. Dhirendra Kumar (Doctor). They are : i. P.W.1 - Mazid Sheikh (declared hostile), ii. P.W.2 - Mohd. Haider Ali (declared hostile), iii. P.W.3 - Manjaha Bibi (victim/ informant), iv. P.W.4 - Mohammad Zaffar Khan (formal witness) v. P.W.5 - Tewaran Oraon (I.O.), vi. P.W.6 - Maulabi Sheikh (husband of the informant), vii. P.W.7 - Dr. Dhirendra Kumar (Doctor). Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has adduced the following documents in evidence : i. Ext.1 - F.I.R. ii. Ext.-2 - Injury report of the Manjaha Bibi (victim/informant) 10. It is admitted case of the prosecution that the informant P.W. 3 was learning the art of practicing Witchcraft and during the course of process of learning she was going to sacrifice the son of one Adaruddin when she was caught by these appellants and after being assaulted, she was handedover to the police. It is also admitted case of the prosecution which is evident from the evidence of P.W. 6 (Maulabi Sheikh, the husband of the informant P.W. 3) that the victim P.W. 3 was prosecuted for the offence of kidnapping of a child and a criminal case was also pending against her which is evident from para 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the cross examination of P.W. 6. It has also come into evidence that over the efflux of time, the informant P.W. 3 entered into a compromise with the appellants which is evident from her deposition vide para 7. In this background, this Court proceeds to examine the testimonies of the witnesses and other evidences available on record. 11. It is found that P.W. 1 Mazid Sheikh, examined on behalf of the prosecution has been declared hostile and he categorically submitted in his examination-in-chief that he did not know about the incident and his statement was not recorded by the police. 12. P.W. 2 -Mohd. Haider Ali, although this witness has also been declared hostile, but, he has supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that (where he categorically stated in his examination-inchief) the occurrence took place about 3 years back when the informant P.W. 3 had taken away six months baby of Adaruddin for sacrifice and then the appellants had caught hold her (P.W. 3 Manjaha Bibi) and brought her in the house of Adaruddin and thereafter, he left the place. Thus, it is evident that the informant while committing the offence of kidnapping of the child for the purpose to sacrifice in order to learn the art of witchcraft she was caught by the appellants people and brought her to the police station. Since, this is an admitted case of the prosecution that the victim P.W. 3 was accused for kidnapping of the child and, therefore, the version of the witness substantiates this fact also. This witness did not support any kind of assault alleged to have been inflicted by the appellants upon the victim P.W. 3. 13. From the version of P.W. 3 - Manjaha Bibi it appears that the appellant had assaulted her by branding her a dain (witch) and thereafter her body was burnt at several places by a danda wrapped with cloth and immersed with heated mustard oil. She further stated that the accused appellants had brought her to the police station. Thus, from the version of this witness, it is found that the case of the prosecution has been substantiated to the extent that the appellants had assaulted the victim P.W. 3 Manjaha Bibi by branding her as a witch. It is admitted fact by the informant P.W. 3 herself that she was learning the art of witchcraft, therefore, the fact remains to be taken into consideration as to whether she had sustained injuries which are alleged to have been inflicted upon her by the appellants or not. 14. In this view of the matter, it is necessary to appreciate the injury which are alleged to have been inflicted upon the informant- P.W.3 - Manjaha Bibi, who had been examined by doctor Dr. D.P. Burnwal, who had prepared injury report in his pen and writing. Further, the doctor P.W. 7 - Dr. Dhirendra Kumar has simply proved the writing and signature of Dr. D.P. Burnwal which is marked as Ext. 2. 15. Although, the accused persons had been debarred from their valuable rights to cross-examine the doctor, who had not been examined. Although, the doctor had medically examined and injury report was brought on record by P.W.7 Dr. Dhirender Kumar, who explicitly deposed that the injury report was not prepared before me and he had simply identified the handwriting of the Dr. Although, the accused persons had been debarred from their valuable rights to cross-examine the doctor, who had not been examined. Although, the doctor had medically examined and injury report was brought on record by P.W.7 Dr. Dhirender Kumar, who explicitly deposed that the injury report was not prepared before me and he had simply identified the handwriting of the Dr. D.P. Burnwal, who prepared the injury report and as such the nature of injuries could not be ascertained and, therefore, the accused appellants had been precluded from the opportunity to draw the attention of the doctor about the nature of the injury, who had medically examined the victim. However, from the perusal of the Ext. 2, injury report of Manjaha Bibi P.W.3, it appears that as many as six injuries were found on the person of Manjaha Bibi which are as follows:- (i) Burn injury involving dorsum of right hand 3”x 1/2”. (ii) Burn injury on outer aspect of forearm (right) 4”x1 1/2”. (iii) Burn injury on dorsal surface on left hand 3”x1 1/2”. (iv) Burn injury on mid-part of back 8”x2”. (v) Lacerated wound on outer side of right eye on the face. (vi) Complain of pain on chest. From the above, it is manifest that all the injuries inflicted upon P.W. 3 were simple in nature and caused by dry heat except injury no. Vth, which is caused by hard and blunt substance. Therefore, from the version of P.W. 3 and from the injury report Ext. 2 it is well founded that the victim was assaulted by the appellants. Since, all the injuries are simple in nature, but, due to non-examination of the concerned doctor the nature of the injuries could not be ascertained and also with respect to the fact as to whether the vital portion of the body was injured or not and, therefore, the injuries which are said to have been caused by the dangerous weapons within the meaning of sections 147 and 324 of IPC. In absence any evidence of unlawful assembly being constituted by any one of the appellants for the purpose of disturbing public tranquility or using dangerous weapon for causing hurt, are not proved. Only simple injuries which are inflicted upon P.W. 3 are substantiated by the version of P.W. 3 and injury report Ext. 2 within the meaning of the section 323 of IPC. Only simple injuries which are inflicted upon P.W. 3 are substantiated by the version of P.W. 3 and injury report Ext. 2 within the meaning of the section 323 of IPC. Further, from the deposition of P.W. 3 vide Para 7 of the cross-examination, it is evident that she had willingly and voluntarily entered into a compromise with all the accused persons. Since, both the parties are admittedly gotias to each other and section 323 of IPC under which the offence is substantiated is compoundable in nature, and therefore, her subsequent testimonies established the fact that both the parties have entered into a compromise and she did not want to pursue the case. 16. P.W. 4 - Mohd Zaffar- is a formal witness who has proved the formal FIR which is Ext. 1. 17. P.W. 5 - Tewaran Oraon, is the I.O. of this case who has proved the place, date and time of the occurrence and after conducting and completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet. 18. P.W.6 – Maulabi Sheikh, the husband of the P.W. 3 – Manjaha Bibi supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that he had seen his wife in a burnt condition and she was brought to the police station by the accused appellants and, thereafter, she had undergone treatment in the hospital. Although, this witness is not the eye witness, but, he came to know that the accused appellants has burned her wife by a danda wrapped with cloth and immersed in heated mustard oil and, hence, the allegations against all the accused appellants for section 323 of IPC is substantiated by the evidence of this witness. This witness has also stated in categorical manner that his wife (P.W.-3) was also an accused in the kidnapping of child which is an admitted fact and P.W. 3 - Manjaha Bibi, was facing a criminal proceeding to that effect. 19. In view of aforesaid evaluation of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in the foregoing paragraphs, it is well founded that P.W. 3 was the victim and was assaulted by the accused appellants on the allegation that she was practicing witchcraft which was an admitted case of the prosecution, and assault caused by the accused appellants upon the victim P.W. 3 due to which she had sustained mostly burn injuries which are substantiated by the injury report, which had been prepared by Dr. D.P. Burnwal in his pen and writing, and the same has been proved by the doctor P.W. 7 although all the injuries were found to be simple in nature. It is admitted case of the prosecution that P.W. 3 was learning art of practicing witchcraft and for this she was going to sacrifice the child of one Adaruddin. In the meantime, the accused appellants caught hold her and after assaulting her, she was handed over to the Police. Further P.W. 3 - Manjaha Bibi submitted in her deposition during the course of trial in a very categorical and unequivocal words vide para 7 of the cross examination that the case has been compromised with the accused appellants voluntarily and willingly and there was no threat and coercion and she did not want to contest the case further. She has also stated that there was also a compromise in the counter case which is an admitted case of the prosecution that the victim P.W. 3 was facing the trial for the offence of kidnapping a child. So in this view of the matter, it is well founded that the accused appellants were guilty only for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC which is compoundable in nature and, therefore, in the interest of justice it would be just and fair to allow this appeal as compounded. This Court is of the opinion that since the appellants and the victim P.W.3 are related to each other being Gotias and they are living peacefully, it would be in the interest of justice 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. 20. Therefore, in order to, accord quietus to the disputes between the appellants 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 a fit case in the larger interest of peace where the appeal may be allowed as compounded and the offence punishable under section 323 of the IPC is allowed to be compounded on the basis of compromise and settlement. 21. 21. Accordingly, after setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 147, 323 and 324 of the IPC, this Court upholds the conviction only u/s 323 of IPC after taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and the categorical depositions of the P.W.3 that the matter has been compromised. 22. In the result, this appeal is allowed as compounded. 23. All the appellants are acquitted from the charges leveled against them. Since, the appellants are on bail they are discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. 24. Let the LCR be sent back to the concerned court below along with the copy of this judgment.