The High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed against conviction under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. The court based its decision on a compromise affidavit filed by the parties in 2019, invoking Section 320(5) Cr.P.C., and set aside the earlier conviction and sentence.
The judgment and order dated 27.3.1991 convicting the appellants is set aside.
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. - 89
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 737 of 1991
Appellant :- Ramesh And Other Respondent :- State Counsel for Appellant :- A.R.B. Kher,Harish Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.,Rajendra Prasad Maury
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Rajendra Prasad Maurya, learned counsel for the injured person/informant, and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The instant criminal appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 27.3.1991 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act) Jhansi in Session Trial No. 237 of 1989, whereby the appellant no. 1 is convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine 2 months S.I. The appellant nos. 2 and 3 have been convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to three months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine 15 days S.I.
A compromise has been entered into between the parties and there is a joint affidavit filed on record dated 16.12.2019 to which the injured person Ganga Ram who happens to be informant also, is also a signatory to the said affidavit of compromise.
Counsels for both the parties have stated at the Bar that compromise have been entered into between the parties and they have been living amicably. There are no criminal antecedents of the appellants.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has also not objected to the said fact and has also stated that the injured person Ganga Ram has the right to get the case compounded under Section 325 IPC. Section 320(5) Cr.P.C. is applicable to the case as the case is compoundable with the permission of the Court. The parties are permitted to settle the matter in light of the compromise entered into by them.
In light of the aforesaid provisions of Cr.P.C. and IPC, the appeal is allowed on the basis of the said compromise.
The judgement and order dated 27.3.1991 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act) Jhansi in Session Trial No. 237 of 1989,
whereby the appellant no. 1 is convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine 2 months S.I, while the appellant nos. 2 and 3 have been convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to three months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine 15 days S.I stands set aside in light of the said compromise.
Let a copy of this judgement along with lower court record be sent to the Sessions Judge concerned for compliance.
Order Date :- 9.9.2022 Shalini
Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.09.09 13:30:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal appeal should be allowed in light of the compromise entered between the parties.
Whether the conviction and sentence of the appellants can be set aside based on the compromise affidavit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramesh And Other
State
Shalini Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
