Penal Code, 1860 – S. 307 – Whether the accused can be acquitted from the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. on the basis of compromise at the appellate stage or not? Held, once a person is convicted, then he cannot be acquitted on the basis of compromise.
Penal Law – Where the offence is non-compoundable and the parties have come to a compromise, then the factum of compromise can always be considered while determining the question of sentence.
PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA MAHAJAN & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
Date of Judgment : 01.12.2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 686 OF 2007
Ramkrishna alias Sanju Sharma & Ors. -Vs- State of M.P.
Shri R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri V.K. Agarwal, Counsel for the appellants. Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
J U D G M E N T
PER JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and sentence dated 24-8-2007 passed by IVth A.S.J., Morena, District Morena in Sessions Trial No.44/1994 by which the appellant No. 1 Ramkrishna @ Sanju has been convicted under Sections 341, 307, and 324 of I.P.C. and the appellants No.2, 3 and 4 have been convicted under Sections 341, 323 of I.P.C. Appellant No.1, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and a fine of Rs.2000/- with default imprisonment for offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment of 1 years and a fine of Rs.2000/- for offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. and a fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. The appellants No. 2 and 3 have been sentenced to the period already undergone by them and a fine of Rs.1000/- with default imprisonment for offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. and the appellant No. 4 has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- for offence under Sections 341 and 323 of I.P.C. respectively.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that Shriram Sharma, the father of the complainant Rajesh Sharma, appellant Siyaram and Prosecution witness Ramnath Sharma (P.W.9) are real brothers. One Ratiram is a cousin brother and was issueless, therefore, he had given his property to Ramlakhan and appellant Ramkrishna by way of “will” and “sale deed” and accordingly Ramlakhan and appellant Ramkrishna were in possession of the same. The parties were at loggerhead due to this property dispute. One civil suit as well as criminal cases had taken place between the parties.
3. According to the prosecution story, two days prior to 21- 6-1993, the complainant Rajesh had come to his village to look after his fields. His uncle, namely Ramnath Sharma and his son Shrikant Sharma had also come to the village and were staying in the house of Ramswaroop Goswami. On the date of incident, the appellant Siyaram and Ramnath had a talk in the house of Siyaram on the issue of partition. The talks took place in a cordial atmosphere. Thereafter, the complainant went to fetch water from a well. When he reached in front of the house of Siyaram, he was caught hold by the appellant Bhagwati and appellant Ramlakhan gave a lathi blow on his head. The appellants Siyaram and Ramkrishna @ Sanju also started assaulting him by lathis, as a result of which the complainant Rajesh Sharma fell down. On hearing the screams of the complainant, Ramswaroop Bharti (P.W.8), Ramnath Sharma (P.W.9) and Shrikant Sharma (P.W.10) reached on the spot. At that time, the appellant Ramkrishna @ Sanju went to the roof of his house and fired a gun shot, but the said fire did not hit the complainant Rajesh Sharma, but a pellet hit on the forehead of Ramjilal (P.W.5), who was sitting in front of the door of his house. The F.I.R. Ex. P. 11 was lodged. The police after concluding the investigation, filed the charge sheet.
4. The Trial Court framed charges for offence under Sections 341,307 of I.P.C. against the appellant no.1 and under Sections 341, 323 of I.P.C. against the remaining appellants.
5. The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.