In a criminal revision against a sentence under the I.P.C., this Court held that since a compromise had arrived at between the petitioner and the parties who suffered injury, and the offence was compoundable, the revision was disposed of in terms of the compromise with a direction to the court below to decide the dispute accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 427 of 1999
Revisionist :- Lal Chand And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P... Counsel for Revisionist :- N.K.Roy,A.K.Rathore,Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate...
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J .
This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.2.1998 passed by 7th A.C.J.M., Varanasi in case no. 405 of 1995 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506 (2) I.P.C. and sentencing the revisionist nos. 1 to 4 each under Section 325/34, to undergo 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/-, under Section 323/34 to under go 6 months simple imprisonment and Rs. 300 of fine and under Section 504 I.P.C. to under to 6 months simple imprisonment and Rs. 500/- fine. All the convictions will run concurrently. In default of payment of fine one year additional imprisonment. The co-accused Ram Rathi was acquitted to all the charges. Revisionist no. 1 to 4 were also acquitted under Section 147, 148, 506 (2) I.P.C. In payment of fine half of the fine is to be given the complainant as compensation. Learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in criminal appeal no. 51 of 1998 vide order dated 12.2.1999 modified the sentence and awarded the revisionist no. 1 to 4 under Section 323/34 I.P.C. 6 months R.I. under Section 325/34 one year R.I. and Rs. 1000 fine and under Section 504 I.P.C. fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo sentence of 6 months..
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Syed Imram Ibrahim, learned counsel for the first informant, Dinesh Kumar and on behalf of the injured, Moti learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned judgment and order.
A short counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Syed Imram Ibrahim, learned counsel for the first informant, Dinesh Kumar and on behalf of the injured, Moti. A compromise has also been annexed with this short counter affidavit.
Learned counsel for both the sides have contended that revisionist and opposite parties i.e. first informant and injured have settled their dispute, as a compromise has arrived at between the both the sides.
The impugned order is based on the proper appraisal of the evidence available on record and no interference is required by this Court. Thus, there is no illegality or impropriety in the
impugned order. As a compromise has arrived at between the parties and therefore this revision is liable to be decided in terms of the compromise, as the offence is compoundable.
The revision is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the compromise. The learned court below is also directed to decide the dispute between the parties in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
The copy of this order be transmitted to the court below for necessary compliance.
O rder Date :- 1.4.2019
A. Pt. Singh
Lal Chand And Others
State Of U.P
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
