Allowed

Inder Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2022CRLAS/118/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal based on a compromise between the parties. The court acquitted the appellants of offences under Sections 323, 324, and 341 of the IPC and quashed the impugned conviction and sentence.

What did the court decide?

The accused appellants were acquitted of charges under Sections 323, 324, and 341 of the IPC. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was quashed and set aside. Accused were ordered released

Inder Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 118/2022

¶3

Inder Kumar S/o Shri Bhagwanaram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Harijan Basti, Chhavani Shivganj, Police Station Shivganj, District Sirohi.

¶4

Jayanti Lal S/o Shri Inder Kumar, Aged About 36 Years, R/ o Harijan Basti, Chhavani Shivganj, Police Station Shivganj, District Sirohi.

¶5

----Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Rakesh Arora
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
For Complainant	Mr. VK Bhadu

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶11

Judgment

¶12

07/02/2022

¶13

By way of filing the present cr. Appeal, the accused-appellants challenged the judgment dated 13.1.2022 passed by the learend Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Sessions Cases No.20/2014 whereby the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as follows:

¶14

Accused appellant no.1 Inder Kumar	1.Under Section 323 of IPC– Six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of find to further undergo one months’ simple imprisonment 2.Under Section 324 of IPC– Two years’ of simple imprisonment with a find of Rs.30,000/- and in default of payment of find to further undergo two months’ simple imprisonment.
Accused appellant no.2 Jayanti Lal	1.Under Section 341 of IPC– Fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo seven day’s simple imprisonment
	2.Under Section 323 of IPC– Six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of find to further

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLAS-118/2022]

¶17

undergo one months’ simple imprisonment

¶18

Under Section 324 of IPC – Two years’ of simple imprisonment with a find of Rs.30,000/- and in default of payment of find to further undergo two months’ simple imprisonment.

¶19

Learned counsel for the accused-appellants at the outset submits that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, copy whereof has been produced before this Court, which is taken on record. Leanred counsel for the accused-appellants submits that though the accused-appellants have also been convicted and sentence under Section 324 of the IPC, which is not compoundable, but as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mahesh Chand & Anr Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 681 and Ram Prasad & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1982) 2 SCC 149 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that looking to the nature of the case and circumstances under which the offence was committed, the court concerned may accord permission to compound the offence.

¶20

In view of the above, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that while allowing the present appeal, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence may be quashed and set aside.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the complainant are not in a position to dispute the afoersaid factual aspect of the matter.

¶22

On the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the present appeal is allowed. The accused-appellants are acquitted of the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 341 of the IPC. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.1.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Sessions Case no.20/2014 is quashed and set aside.

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLAS-118/2022]

¶25

The accused-appellants, if in custody, be released forthwith, in case they are not required in any other case.

¶26

All the interlocutoary applications including the application seeking suspension of sentence stand disposed of accordingly.

¶27

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶28

9-CPGoyal/-

Inder Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inder Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

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

Manohar Singh Vs State

Rajveer Singh Vs State

Bhagirath Singh Vs Om Prakash

Ganga Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilip Vs State of Rajasthan

Devi Singh Vs State