Partly allowed

Babruwan Venkati Istalkar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Sept 2021APPLN/1834/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Aurangabad held that while an offence under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC is non-compoundable, the settlement between parties allowed for reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone (37 days); appellants set at liberty if not required for any other case.

Babruwan Venkati Istalkar and Others Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

Cri. Appln. No. 1834-2021.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1834 OF 2021

¶5

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 348 OF 2007

¶7

Babruwan S/o Venkati Istalkar, Age : 48 Years, Occ. Service

¶8

Parmeshwar @ Babu Babruwan Istalkar, Age : 22 Years, Occ. Agriculture

¶9

Rameshwar Babruwan Istalkar, Age : 19 Years, Occ. Bhalan, All R/o Bhalam Galli, Renapur Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur.

¶10

Bhagwat S/o Gyanoba Istalkar, Age : 45 Years, Occ. Agricultural, R/o. Ellam Galli, Renapur, Tq. Renapur Dist. Latur. ..APPLICANTS

¶11

V E R S U S

¶12

The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Renapur Dist. Latur.

¶13

..RESPONDENTS

¶14

Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. R. B. Bagul, Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. A. V. Patil ( Indrale) for the complainant.

¶15

CORAM : SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J. DATE : 24.09.2021

¶16

PER COURT :

¶17

The applicants have flee this application for

¶18

compouneing of the ofence punishable uneer Section 307 r/w 34 of the Ineian Penal Coee ane prayee for their acquittal.

¶19

¶20

Cri. Appln. No. 1834-2021.odt

¶21

The facts giving rise to this application/appeal, can be summarizee as uneer :

¶22

The applicant Nos. 1 to 3 were prosecutee, at the instance of the applicant No.4. Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 are original accusee, in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2007. They were triee by the learnee Aeeitional Sessions Juege, Latur for the ofences punishable uneer Section 307 r/w 34 of the Ineian Penal Coee. It is allegee against the applicant Nos. 1 to 3 that they have assaultee applicant No.4 by an Axe, fst ane kicks blows. It is allegee that applicant No.2 gave blow of an Axe on the heae ane back of applicant No.4, who sustainee grievous injuries. Therefore, he was taken to hospital. On eue investigation, the charge sheet came to be flee against applicant Nos. 1 to 3. The prosecution has reliee, on the evieence of as many as eleven witnesses. On scrutiny of the evieence, the learnee Aeeitional Sessions Juege, Latur, convictee applicant Nos. 1 to 3 ane sentencee them to sufer rigorous imprisonment for fve years ane to pay fne of 2,000/- each in eefault they were eirectee to uneergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The applicant Nos. 1 to 3 have paie the fne before trial Court.

¶23

¶24

Cri. Appln. No. 1834-2021.odt

¶25

During the investigation, applicant Nos. 1 to 3 were in jueicial custoey for 15 eays. Thereafter, they were releasee on bail. After the conviction, the appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were in jail for twenty two eays. Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 challengee the sentence imposee upon them by the learnee Aeeitional Sessions Juege, Latur by way of appeal bearing No. 348 of 2007.

¶26

During the peneency of this appeal, appellant Nos. 1 to 3 (original accusee) ane the informant victim i.e. applicant No.4 flee present application for compouneing of the ofence.

¶27

It is conteneee that the applicant Nos. 1 to 4 are resieent of same village. They are from same brother-hooe. They are having lanes aejacent to each other. Since the eate of conviction the applicants are resieing peacefully in their village. They have agreee to maintain social peace without eisturbance in the life of each other. Applicant Nos. 1 to 4 have no grievance against each other, therefore, the original informant/ victim has also signee this application. Therefore,

¶28

¶29

Cri. Appln. No. 1834-2021.odt

¶30

it is prayee that the applicants be allowee to compoune the ofence in which applicant Nos. 1 to 3 have been convictee.

¶31

Notice of this application was issuee to learnee Aeeitional Public Prosecutor who submits that the ofence provee against the applicant Nos. 1 to 3 is uneer Section 307 of the Ineian Penal Coee, which is non compouneing uneer Section 320 of the Coee of Criminal Proceeure, therefore, the compouneing of ofence is not permissible ane at the most the sentence imposee upon the applicant Nos. 1 to 3 can be reeucee to some extent. Learnee counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are resieing peacefully since last several years, therefore, they may be allowee to compoune the ofence. He reliee on the ratio laie eown in the case of

¶32

Gulab Das and Others Vs. State of Madhyra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 2126 of 2011 wherein the appellants were convictee for the ofence punishable uneer Section 307 of the Ineian Penal Coee. The Hon’ble Apex Court hele that

¶33

‘’ Having saie that we are of the view that the settlement/ compromise arrivee at between the parties can be taken into consieeration for the purpose of eetermining the quantum of sentence to be awareee to the appellants. That is precisely the approach which this Court has aeoptee in the cases referree to above. Even when the prayer

¶34

¶35

Cri. Appln. No. 1834-2021.odt

¶36

for composition has been eeclinee this Court has in the two cases mentionee above taken the fact of settlement between the parties into consieeration while eealing with the question of sentence. Apart from the fact that a settlement has taken place between the parties, there are few other circumstances that persuaee us to interfere on the question of sentence awareee to the appellants. The incieent in question hae taken place in the year 1994. The parties are relatee to each other. Both appellant Nos. 2 ane 3 were at the time of the incieent in their twenties. It is also noteworthy that the incieent hae lee to registration of a cross case against the complainant party in which the trial Court has alreaey convictee Veeraji ane others for ofences punishable uneer Sections 325/34 ane 323 IPC ane sentencee them to uneergo imprisonment for a perioe of two years ane a fne of Rs. 300/- ane imprisonment of six months uneer Section 323 IPC. We are tole that the parties having settlee the matter, will approach the High Court for an appropriate oreer in the appeal peneing before it. More so, the appellants have alreaey servee substantial part of the sentence awareee to them.

¶37

In the totality of the circumstances we are of the view that the settlement arrivee at between the parties is a sensible step that will beneft the parties, give quietus to the controversy ane

¶38

¶39

Cri. Appln. No. 1834-2021.odt

¶40

rehabilitate ane normalize the relationship between them.’’

¶41

The learnee Aeeitional Public Prosecutor has also reliee on the ratio laie eown in the case of Murali Vs. State

¶42

Represented by Its Inspector of Police in Criminal Appeal No. 24/2021 wherein the appellants were convictee for the ofences punishable uneer Sections 307, 341 of the Ineian Penal Coee ane were sentencee to sufer rigorous imprisonment for fve years. The Apex Court, on consieering the facts inclueing the compromise between the parties reeucee the quantum of sentence imposee upon the appellants.

¶43

Learnee A.P.P has also reliee on the ratio laie eown in the case of Pravat Chandra Mohanty Vs. State of Odisha and Another in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2021 the

¶44

Apex Court reeucee the sentence awareee to the appellants therein ane enhancee the compensation to be paie to the legal heirs of the eeceasee. In the saie case, the appellants were convictee for the ofence punishable uneer Section 304 (part II) of the Ineian Penal Coee ane was sentencee to sufer rigorous imprisonment for fve years.

¶45

¶46

Cri. Appln. No. 1834-2021.odt

¶47

In view of the above observations of the Apex Court I am not inclinee to acquit applicant Nos. 1 to 3 by compouneing the ofence provee against them. In view of settlement, the sentence imposee upon the applicant Nos. 1 to 3 can be reeucee to the perioe alreaey uneergone by them. It appears that euring investigation the applicant Nos. 1 to 3 were in custoey of 15 eays. Similarly, after conviction they were in jail for twenty two eays. Therefore, the sentence may be reeucee to 37 eays i.e. perioe alreaey uneergone by them. As the parties are resieing in the same village, they are from same brotherhooe ane since last fourteen years, there are no untoware incieent occurree between them the learnee counsel for applicant No.4 i.e. victim has also submittee that the eispute between the parties is amicably resolvee by the applicants. The application is signee by applicant Nos. 1 to 3 ane original /informant, therefore to meet the ene of justice. I pass the following oreer :-

¶48

O R D E R

¶49

(i) The appeal is partly allowee.

¶50

(ii) The oreer of conviction recoreee by the learnee Ae- hoc Aeeitional Sessions Juege, Latur in Sessions Case

¶51

¶52

Cri. Appln. No. 1834-2021.odt

¶53

No.21/2007 convicting the appellant Nos. 1 o 3 for the ofence punishable uneer Section 307 reae with Section 34 of the Ineian Penal Coee is hereby confrmee, but the sentence awareee to the appellant Nos. 1 to 3 is reeucee to the perioe alreaey uneergone by them.

¶54

(iii) The appeal to that extent is allowee ane impugnee oreer is moeifee accoreingly.

¶55

(iv) The appellant Nos. 1 to 3 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not requiree in any other crime.

¶56

(v) Criminal Application No. 1834 of 2021 is eisposee of accoreingly.

¶57

( SURENDRA P. TAVADE ) JUDGE

¶58

ysk

Babruwan Venkati Istalkar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babruwan Venkati Istalkar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Sohel Pasha Khaja Khamroddin Chishti and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sk. Alim S/O Sk. Sharif Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vasundhara W/O. Digambar Sonkamble and Anr. Vs Manisha W/O. Raju Sonkamble and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Navnath Bharat Ghonse

Haribhau Dadarao Sakhare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Samadhan S/O Rajaram Mali and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another