Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1391 (RAJ)

Vijay Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2023-07-18

FARJAND ALI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374 CrPC has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment dated 27.08.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.48/1992, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under : Name of the appellant Offence for which convicted Sentence Awarded Fine imposed Default Sentence Vijay Singh Section 326 IPC 7 Years R.I. Rs.10,000/- 1 Year R.I. Section 324 IPC 1 Year R.I. Rs.1,000/- 1 Month R.I. Section 323/34 IPC 6 months R.I. Rs.1,000/- 1 Month R.I. Bhopal Singh Section 326/34 IPC 5 Years R.I. Rs.5,000/- 6 months R.I. Section 324/34 IPC 6 months R.I. Rs.1,000/- 1 Month R.I. Section 323 IPC 6 months R.I. Rs.1,000/- 1 Month R.I 2. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are that on 22.05.1991 one Daulat Singh (P.W.6) submitted a report at the Police Station Bhindar, District Udaipur to the effect that marriage of his brother Jorawar Singh's granddaughter was solemnized on the previous day. The Baarat had returned at 07.00 p.m. Later that night at 11.00 p.m., he was sleeping outside his house on a cot. His brother Jorawar Singh and other guests were at his house. Jorawar Singh and Hari Singh were going to their old house to bring some articles. As soon as they came out of the house, accused appellants Vijay Singh and Bhopal Singh came from behind with an intention to kill both of them. Vijay Singh was having a sword in his hand, whereas Bhopal Singh was having lath. Jorawar Singh made a hue and cry, upon which, the complainant ran to the spot. Vijay Singh gave a sword blow to Jorawar Singh, due to which, fingers of his left hand were cut off. He also gave a second blow on the left hand of Jorawar Singh. Vijay Singh also gave sword blow to Hari Singh, due to which he received injury on his head. Bhopal Singh also made assault with lath. Hearing the noise, Govardhan Singh, Arjun Singh, Fateh Singh and Bhanwar Singh came at the spot, who too were assaulted by the accused appellants with sword and lath. The complainant stated that the he saw the incident with his own eyes. The injured were taken to the hospital. Bhopal Singh also made assault with lath. Hearing the noise, Govardhan Singh, Arjun Singh, Fateh Singh and Bhanwar Singh came at the spot, who too were assaulted by the accused appellants with sword and lath. The complainant stated that the he saw the incident with his own eyes. The injured were taken to the hospital. The reason of the assault was old enmity due to land dispute. 3. On the basis of this information, FIR No.42/1991 was registered for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 323, 324/34 IPC and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the police got the injured medically examined and procured the medical reports (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/6). The accused-appellants were arrested and on the basis of the information provided by them under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the weapons of offence, i.e. sword and lath, were recovered vide recovery memos Ex.P/17 and Ex.P/19. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323/34 IPC was submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanod, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellants for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC and read over to them, upon which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case, examined 15 witnesses, namely, Jorawar Singh (P.W.1), Arjun Singh (P.W.2), Hari Singh (P.W.3), Fateh Singh (P.W.4), Dr. Jamnalal (P.W.5), Daulat Singh (P.W.6), Shamboo singh (P.W.7), Govardhan Singh (P.W.8), Gulab singh (P.W.9), Ratan Singh (P.W.10), Man Singh (P.W.11), Bhanwar Singh (P.W.12), Bhanwar Singh S/o Mod Singh (P.W.13), Dr. Yogesh Sharma (P.W.14) and Shobha Lal (P.W.15), and exhibited 19 documents. The accused were questioned under Section 313 CrPC and were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case. They denied the same claiming that in fact the complainant party attacked them and in turn received injuries when the accused appellant tried to defend themselves. The appellants examined one witness and exhibited 8 documents in defence. The accused were questioned under Section 313 CrPC and were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case. They denied the same claiming that in fact the complainant party attacked them and in turn received injuries when the accused appellant tried to defend themselves. The appellants examined one witness and exhibited 8 documents in defence. After appreciating the evidence placed on record and hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel, the learned trial court acquitted the appellants from the charge under Section 307 IPC but convicted them for the other offences as detailed in opening paragraph of this judgment. Being aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences awarded, the accused-appellants have preferred the instant appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after admission of the appeal, an application under Section 320 (5) CrPC was filed on behalf of the appellant in the year 2008 averring therein that the parties have arrived at a compromise and have settled their dispute amicably and that the complainant party does not wish to proceed with the criminal proceedings against the accused persons, therefore, the appellants may be released by compounding the offences on the basis of the compromise. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident of the year 1991. The complainant party and the appellants belong to the same village and are close relatives and are living peacefully since three decades, therefore, considering all aspect and in the interest of justice the appellants may be acquitted by compounding the offences. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellants and submitted that after full-fledged trial the appellants have been found guilty of the offences alleged. He submits that since the offences under Sections 326 and 324 are not compoundable, the appellants should not be acquitted based on compromise and the appeal should be decided on merits. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The fact of compromise is reflecting from the record of the case. It is also averred in the application under Section 320 (5) of the CrPC, which was filed long back in the year 2008. The incident is of the year 1991. It is appearing that the parties belong to the same village and community and are close relatives. 8. The fact of compromise is reflecting from the record of the case. It is also averred in the application under Section 320 (5) of the CrPC, which was filed long back in the year 2008. The incident is of the year 1991. It is appearing that the parties belong to the same village and community and are close relatives. The appellants were young man aged 20-25 years at the time of the incident. The trial court itself has came to a finding that the appellants had no intention to cause death of the victims and therefore, acquitted them from the offence under Section 307 IPC. The parties have decided to bury the hatchet and get past the old feud between them permanently. Thus, looking to the sociological aspect and considering that the rift between them should not be rejuvenated, this court is inclined to consider the fact of compromise for the purpose of compounding the offences. The offence under Section 323 IPC is a compoundable offence. Although the other offences, i.e under Sections 326 and 324 IPC are non-compoundable, but this Court is aptly guided by the pronouncement made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , wherein it is propounded that if the parties resolve the dispute amicably and the matter does not pertain to breach of public peace and essentially, it is a dispute inter se/between the parties, then in such circumstances, with a view to establish harmony between two families, the proceedings can be quashed by the high Court while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In a recent judgment titled Murali Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No.24/2021), the Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the quantum of sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone by them while considering the fact of compromise between the parties, inter alia other aspects. Whenever the fact of compromise is taken into consideration by the Court post conviction, discretion shall be exercised with caution and while considering the circumstances prevalent in the matter at hand. In the present case, considering all the factors, including the fact of compromise, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the appeal. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Whenever the fact of compromise is taken into consideration by the Court post conviction, discretion shall be exercised with caution and while considering the circumstances prevalent in the matter at hand. In the present case, considering all the factors, including the fact of compromise, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the appeal. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 27.08.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.48/1992 is set aside and the appellants acquitted from the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged. 10. All pending applications stand disposed of.