Partly allowed

Srikrishan and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC25 Feb 2020CRLA/255/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court of Rajasthan considered the maintainability of acquittal and sentence modification after a compromise. The court acquitted appellants of compoundable charges (148, 323, 325 IPC) but reduced the sentence for the non-compoundable Section 307 IPC charge to the period already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Appellants acquitted of offences under Sections 148, 323, and 325 IPC; conviction under Section 307 IPC maintained but sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

Srikrishan and Ors. Vs State — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 255/2008

¶3

Srikrishan

¶4

Dayaram

¶5

Ramehar

¶6

Harikishan

¶7

Jaipal

¶8

All sons of Shr-i Kundan by caste Ahir, r/o Khanpur, PS Bhiwadi,
District Alwar -' Cl?u
.;p' % P,, ) 7 E': ,*
(tpiesese@&*mn'ce& .R. a s,. b- xa:g-, % !gWlwa %;. r)
A;$$& "4 f%k
%4:z> ----X@ps~d Appellants
L@ .%.
sg'g" .< Versus
-
State -*4;;, % A
v @
----Respondent

For Appellant(s)

HOM'BLE MR.

25/82/2020

I appeal filed by the ~... accused appellants u % ms- the judgment of convicq$FgTdn % ted 01.03.2008 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Tijara (Alwar) Rajasthan, in Sessions Case No.126/2007 (62/2004), whereby the trial court convicted and y I. sentenced the accused appellants as under:U/s. 148 IPC:

¶13

Two years rigorous imprisonment.

¶14

U/s. 323 IPC:

¶15

One year rigorous imprisonment.

¶16

U/s. 325 IPC:

¶17

Three years rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

¶18

U/s. 307 IPC:

¶19

nt, with fine of undergo

¶20

concurrently.

¶21

Learned has submitted that he is not challengin on recorded by the trial court but has su tence awarded to the accused appellants d already undergone by them in judicial confin rties have resolved their disputes in terms of c 019 which is duly authorized by the unsel for the accused appellants prayed to t promise on record and the accused appell ay be saddled with the jail sentence of period already undergone.

¶22

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants.

¶23

So far as-the offences under sections 148, 323, 325 IPC are concerned, they are compoundable and thus, the offences can be compounded even at the appellate/ revisional stage.

¶24

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the accused appellants has placed reliance upon para nos. 24, 25, 26,

¶25

27 and 28 of the judgment dated 01.12.2017 delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ramkrishna alias Sanju Sharma I& Ors. (Criminal Appeal Mo.686 of 2087), which are ad-infra:-

¶26

24. Thus, it is clear that where the' offence is noncompoundable and the parties have come to a I compromise, then th& : **_a_* iactum of compromise can f 129 h always bei~~&~reb' #/q d&e!mining the question of sentenre. 's "- g, %e&. t2&&. phpB 25$R + the facts of the present appeal a@ considered, <it$$ en it would be clear that according to the prcsecution qp% case, the appellant had fired on Rajesh Sharma but the /let injuries to Ramjilal appellant has been "&$&!$ aB.. p$%: P.C. for firing at appellant has been of I. P.C. for arma were fi rfi$&amlakhan and Siyaram 6 were sentenced with dergone by him. It is r the appellants that, during trial, .had remained in jail from'"5- '5-11 -1 for a period of 50 < Sni'Z ." days during trial and he - .has remained in jail for a period of 55 days after Trial, as he was granted bail by I this Court by order dated 17-10-2007. Thus, he has Zlr ,.i remained in jail for a b -.$ I period of 105 days. The - f complainant Rajesh Sharma, had also filed a Criminal Revision for enhancement f: of sentence which was ir ' -% ." registered as Cr.R. No.862j2007. The complainant has i i withdrawn the criminal revision in the light of the compromise , w arrived at between the parties, I

¶27

(4 of 7)

¶28

[CRLA-255/2008]

¶29

26. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the genesis of the dispute, as well as the fact that the incident took place in the year 1993 and 24 years have passed, as well as the parties are related to each other, this Court is of the considered opinion that while maintaining the conviction of the appellant no. 1 for offence under Section 307 of I. P. C., and by taking into consideration that compromise has taken place between the parties, the ends of justice

¶30

Prade dealt with para nos. 7 alias Sanju Sharma &L~I?qeqqPrqq $a% ,' and 8 the judgment delivered by the?Hon"ble Apex Court in the case of Gulab Das and others vs. State of M.P., reported in AItR 2012 SC 888, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held adinfra:-

¶31

''7. In the light of the submissions made at the bar the only question that falls for8 determination is whether the prayer for composition of the offence under Section 307, KC could be allowed having regard to the compromise arrived at 'between the parties. Our

¶32

answer is in the negative. This Court has in a long line of decisions ruled that offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be compounded even if there is any settlement between the complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of this Court in Ram La1 and Anr. v. State of J and K (I 999) 2 SCC 213 : (AIR 1999 SC 895), and Ishwar Sinqh v. State of Madhva 2009 SC 675). We the prayer for which ellant Nos. 2 and 3 stand convicted. bF * Y*$ dA 3

¶33

8. Having said that we ai;e of the view that the

¶34

kived at between the parties can be ; for the purpose of de term in ce to be awarded to - _!2RV_* * the appellan&& the approach which ses referred to above. composition has been

¶35

""" PgC$-$-Flr, .~~a$hy taken place ~~B.OA~.*,L~.&

¶36

circumstance~ff$q v.. ' ersemde?~s to inteHere on the "C @ "% ws;gj"-?cg question of sentence awarded to the appellants. The incident in question had taken place in the year 1994. The parties are related to each other. Both Appellant '; r' : Nos. 2 and 3 were at the time of the incident in their twenties. It is also noteworthy that the incident had led to registration of a cross .case against the complainant pa& in which the trial Court has already convicted ! Veeraji and others for offences punishable under Sections 325/3 and 3.23, EC and sentenced them to f undergo imprisonment for: a period of two years and a I ..

¶37

fine of Rs. 300/- and imprisonment of six months under Section 323, EC. We are told that the parties having settled the matter, will approach the High Court for an appropriate order in the appeal pending before it Moreso, the appellants have already served substantial part of the sentence awarded to them".

¶38

Thus, it is clear that where the offence is noncompoundable and the pa the factum of s~tbl determining the question o he instant case the appellants have rge under sections 148, 323, 325

¶39

submitted by the cou nts that accused appellant No.1 Sr ant No.2-Dayaram, accused appellant ed appellant No.4Harikishan were grante ory, though after order of conviction passed by ach of them remained in 3 I judicial custody for 25 d t No.5 Jaipal, in total has remained in

¶40

ts and circumstances the fact that the _sww_* alleged incident took 03 and 17 years have passed, this Court is of the considered opinion that while maintaining the conviction of the accused appellants for the ... ." offence uritier section 307 IPC and by taking into consideration that compromise has taken place between the parties, the ends of justice would be served if the jail sentence .of six years awarded to the accused appellants for offence under section 307 IPC, is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants.

¶41

Accordingly, maintaining the fine amount, the jail sentence awarded to the appellants for offence under section 307 IPC is modified to the .period already undergone.

¶42

Consequently, the criminal appeal filed by the accused appellants is partly allowed. The "appellants are acquitted of the charge under sections 148, 323 and 325 IPC but the conviction of the appellants for the charge under section 307 IPC is hereby amount, they are $$$*-$ sentenced already undergone ifiso, q 8 nfinement. The ,G& **%4;A/k* entered in betwee:n>both the %. ,-, py&# RW parties, which is duly notarized by the Notary Public isF&ken on record.

¶43

d sentence dated 01.03.2008 passed dl. Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No..126/2007 (62/200 the extent mentioned

¶44

No..126/2007 (62/200 above.

¶45

bail bonds and surety bonds stand d'ischarg. quired in the present case. %: **_d;rii~<aCCC_ ".c The criminalseaippeai$~3~~@ .%. B" s3q + , q3 -d Q.r accused appellants is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above.

¶46

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶47

NARENDRA KR SHARMA /384

Srikrishan and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srikrishan and Ors. v. State

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

Sharwani Devi W/O Richhpal B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramswaroop Khichad S/O Bhagwana Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Jalla S/O Rujdar B/C Mev Vs State of Rajasthan

Anya Vs State

Brijmohan S/O Shreephool B/C Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhura@Mukesh Kumar Saini S/O Ganguram @ Gangaram Saini B/C Mali Vs State of Rajasthan