Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 910 (RAJ)

Chaina Ram S/o Har Lal v. State

2023-04-24

FARJAND ALI

body2023
JUDGMENT : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. By way of these two appeals, challenge has been made against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.04.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 (Fast Track), Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 118/2005 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325 and 307 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a written report (Ex.P/6) submitted by the complainant Budha Ram PW-4, the investigation commenced wherein the accused-appellants Chaina Ram and Lakha Ram were arrested and after usual investigation, charge sheet came to be submitted against them for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 326 325/34 of the IPC. After taking cognizance of the offences, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilara committed the matter to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 (Fast Track) Jodhpur where charges were framed against the accused-appellants. As many as 13 witnesses were examined and 22 documents were tendered into evidence on behalf of the prosecution. Thereafter, an explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was sought wherein the accused-appellants claimed innocence and explained that they were falsely implicated in the case at hand. Two witnesses Jai Ram DW-1 and Pappu Ram DW-2 were produced in defence and reliance was placed upon Ex.D1 to Ex.D6. Thereafter, after hearing the counsel for the parties, learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences which are as under: Name of the appellants Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded and fine Chaina Ram 341 IPC 15 days’ simple imprisonment 323 IPC 3 months’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. 324 IPC 6 months’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. 325 IPC One year’s simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. 307 IPC 7 years’ simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. Lakha Ram 341 IPC 15 days simple imprisonment 323 IPC 3 months’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 307 IPC 7 years’ simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. Lakha Ram 341 IPC 15 days simple imprisonment 323 IPC 3 months’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. 325 IPC One year’s simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. 307 IPC 7 years’ simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. 3. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. During the course of appeal, the parties have entered into a compromise by resolving their dispute amicably and accordingly, the matter was placed before the National Lok Adalat convened on 10.07.2021 whereby the compromise submitted by the parties got attested in National Lok Adalat and order sheet was drawn in this regard. 5. Learned counsel for the parties submit that except the offence under Section 307 IPC, the rest of the offences are compoundable by virtue of Section 320 of the IPC. It is submitted that prima facie no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out because neither the facts and circumstances of the case bring the matter within the ambit of Section 307 of the IPC nor the injuries sustained by the victim Amra Ram are such so as to cause danger to life of the victim. As such, there is no basis upon which an inference of intent to commit murder can be inferred. It is argued that the parties are close-relatives and residents of the same vicinity; the parties appeared before this Court and executed the compromise meaning thereby that they have resolved the dispute amicably and have restablished their relations, therefore, in order to maintain peace and harmony and to bury down the old dispute, inherent powers may be exercised to quash the proceedings and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer so made by the learned counsel for the appellants though he does not dispute the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise and settled their dispute amicably as also that they are residents of the same village and the dispute occurred in spur of the moment. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the material available on record. 8. A perusal of the record reflects that the incident occurred on 24.11.2004. There was no pre-meditation or pre-plan to commit offence rather the dispute erupted in between the parties on a very trivial issue and in spur of the moment. Looking to the nature of injuries, number of injuries, part of body chosen to inflict injury, kind of weapon used to inflict injuries, the number of accused persons and other surrounding circumstances, it can be presumed that the matter does not come within the ambit of Section 307 of the IPC as there is not an iota of evidence on record from which it can safely be inferred that accused-appellants had intended to kill the victim Amra Ram and only for that purpose, the attempt was made. Intention to kill someone is an essential ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, which is lacking in the instant matter. Thus, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. The incident had occurred in the year 2004 and now around 18 years have elapsed. The dispute is interse between the parties and does not affect the society at large or does not pertain to maintenance of law and order and breach of peace and tranquility. The long lasting bitterness in relations and dispute between the parties has been yielded up and their vengeance does not exist now. The relationship between them has been restablished and old dispute has been buried down. Except the offence under Section 307 IPC, all the other offences are compoundable in which compounding application has been attested and verified before the National Lok Adalat, Jodhpur held on 10.07.2021 as compromise deed has been executed in between the parties contending therein that their lis has been resolved amicably thus, they do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same. The offence under Section 307 IPC is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 has propounded that if it is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the same by exercising the inherent powers vested in it. It is observed that in such cases, the prosecution becomes lame prosecution and pursuing such a lame prosecution would be a waste of time and energy that will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. This court is aptly guided by the principles propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and feels that when dispute is essentially inter se between the parties, either they are relatives, neighbours or having business relationship which does not affect the society at large, then in such cases, with a view to maintain harmonious relationship between the two sides and for restitution of relationship and with a view to end-up the dispute in between them permanently, the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR and all other subsequent proceedings initiated thereto. 9. Here, in this case, though the judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed but now the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the same is essentially in between the parties which is not affecting public peace and tranquility, therefore, with a view to maintain the harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the court below and acquit the appellants from the charges aforesaid. 10. Accordingly, the criminal appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.04.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No. 118/2005 (State vs. Chaina Ram and Lakha Ram) are hereby quashed and set aside. The accused-appellants Chaina Rama and Lakha Ram are acquitted from the charges under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325 and 307 IPC. Their bail bonds are cancelled. 11. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.