Allowed

Lunaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Sept 2022CRLAS/1396/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HCA allowed appeal in criminal revision based on compromise between parties. Court quashed conviction for SC/ST Act offence while affirming compounding of IPC charges. Appellant acquitted of SC/ST Act charge and discharged from bail.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal of appellant regarding offence under Section 3(1)(S) of SC/ST Act; discharge of bail bonds; impugned judgment set aside partly.

Lunaram 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. 1396/2022

¶3

Lunaram S/o Shri Champaram Jat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Baithwasiya Ps Osian Dist. Jodhpur Raj.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

Devaram S/o Sanwar Ram, R/o Baithwasiya Ps Osian Dist. Jodhpur Raj.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Anada RAm
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi,PP

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Order

¶12

08/09/2022

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards the para 19 of the impugned judgment dated 06.08.2022, which reads as under :-

¶14

"19- iwoksZDr lk{; foospu ls i=koyh ij Li"V o izR;{k lk{; bl vk'k; dh miyC/k gS fd vfHk;qDr us ifjoknh i{k dks tkfrxr :i ls viekfur djrs gq, <s<] uhp vkfn 'kCn turk ds n`f"Vxkspj LFkku ij dgs rFkk vfHk;qDr }kjk vk'k;iwoZd ifjoknh dks viekfur o vfHk=Lr djus ds vk'k; ls tkfrxr xkfy;ka nh xbZ] fdarq ihfM+r }kjk vfHk;qDr ds fo:) /kkjk 323] 341] 427 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds rgr jkthukek izLrqr fd;k tkus ls mDr vijk/k dk 'keu gks pqdk gSA "

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant and the complainant have entered into a compromise and the factum of such compromise is also reflected in aforementioned para 19 of the impugned order dated 06.08.2022. It is also submitted that the learned court below vide order dated

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLAS-1396/2022]

¶18

06.08.2022 has accepted the compromise in relation to the offence under Sections 323, 341 & 427 of IPC but declined to accept and verify the compromise in relation to the offence under Section 3(1)(S) of SC/ST Act on the ground of the said offence being non-compoundable as per Section 320 Cr.P.C.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303] .

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal, but is unable to refute the aforesaid factual matrix.

¶21

In view of compromise arrived at between the parties as well as the aforesaid order dated 06.08.2022 of the learned court below and applying the ratio in decision of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra) , this Court deems it just and proper to allow the appeal.

¶22

In view of above, the present appeal is allowed. Accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 06.08.2022 only to the extent that the appellant’s conviction for the offence under Section 3(1)(S) of SC/ST Act, the appellant is acquitted of the said offence under the SC/ST Act. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶23

Stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶24

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶25

216-Sudheer/-

Lunaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lunaram 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

Ajmer Vidhyut Vit. Nigam Ltd. Vs Sahdev Ram

Nakshatra Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs State

Ashok Kumar Vs State

Ambalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Lrs Baldevraj Gandhi Vs M/S Oswal Fab