Rajesh Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Leave granted.

This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2018 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2009 affirming the conviction of the accused appellant for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code(hereinafter being referred to as "IPC") whereby the learned trial Court sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one month under Section 341 IPC; two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/under Section 324 IPC, four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 325 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo one month and three months simple imprisonment. Out of the total fine amount of Rs. 8000/, if realized, he was directed to pay Rs. 5000/­ as compensation to the injured complainant Parveen Kumar. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The case of the prosecution was that on 11th September, 2006, Reporter Parveen Kumar (injured complainant) had gone to his shop at Village Shukkar Khad. Adjacent to his shop, there was a sweets shop run by one Raj Kumar. At about 9.30 p.m., Parveen Kumar and Raj Kumar came to Village Bhota on a scooter. Parveen Kumar purchased two cigarettes for himself and Raj Kumar from the shop of Pappu at Bhota. The accused appellant, who was standing there, inquired from Raj Kumar whether he knew the appellant or not. When Raj Kumar stated that he did not know the accused, the appellant accused slapped Raj Kumar and also started verbally abusing him. To this, Parveen Kumar as also Raj Kumar protested. Appellant, all of a sudden, went to a tea stall of Sonu from where he picked up 4­5 bottles of Pepsi and hit on the head of Raj Kumar with the same. Both, Parveen Kumar and Raj Kumar, made an endeavor to run towards their houses. On this, accused appellant wrongfully restrained Parveen Kumar. He picked up empty bottles, broke them and hit the same on the head, shoulder, legs and other parts of the body of Parveen Kumar. The accused appellant proclaimed that he was the premier of the Panchayat. As per the prosecution, this occurrence was witnessed by Pappu, Jarnail Singh and Sanjeev Kumar. Only Pappu had rescued him. Blood was oozing from the wounds of the injured complainant Parveen Kumar and he was shifted to R.H. Hamirpur. The statement of the injured was recorded in R.H. Hamirpur, which was endorsed to SHO, P.S. Sadar Hamirpur for the registration of the case. On the complaint lodged by the injured complainant, F.I.R. No. 331/2006 was registered against the appellant under Sections 307, 341, 324 and 325 IPC, for which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

After consideration of the evidence of the complainant/injured person and other witnesses, the trial Court convicted the accused appellant Rajesh Kumar and sentenced him for undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one month under Section 341 IPC; two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/­ under Section 324 IPC, four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/­ under Section 325 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo one month and three months simple imprisonment. Out of the total fine amount of Rs. 8000/, if realized, Rs. 5000/­ was directed to be paid as compensation to the injured complainant Parveen Kumar. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Crl. Appeal No. 18 of 2009 before the High Court. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

It appears from the record that after the conviction was upheld by the High Court vide Judgment dated 29th August, 2018, parties entered into a compromise on 13th September, 2018. At the time of filing the special leave petition, the compromise deed was enclosed alongwith the petition as Annexure­23 of the paper book.

Learned counsel for 2nd respondent (injured complainant­Parveen Kumar) has also filed an application (Crl. M.P. No. 180793 of 2019) which is duly supported by an affidavit of the injured complainant Parveen Kumar, s/o Late Sh. Dharam Das stating inter alia that parties have entered into a compromise and the deed has been enclosed along with the petition dated 13th September, 2018. It is also stated in the application that they are residing in the same locality and want to maintain cordial relations and keeping their future interest and for the betterment of their families, the parties have compromised the matter duly supported with the Compromise Deed dated 13th September, 2018 which is annexed at P­23 of the paper book.

Learned counsel submits that the appellant Rajesh Kumar and the injured complainant Parveen Kumar are residents of the same village and with the intervention of the local residents, the complainant has compounded the offences with the appellant and now there is no grievance against him. The appellant and the injured complainant have categorically stated in their compromise deed filed before us that after the incident, they have developed good relations and they wish to reside peacefully in future without any disruption in their personal lives.

Learned counsel further submits that the offence under Section 324 IPC of which the appellant has been convicted was also compoundable with the permission of the Court on the date of the incident, i.e., 11th September, 2006.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Manoj & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2008(9) SCC 116 and Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2019 SCC Online SC 896.

Learned counsel for the State submitted that the appellant was booked in 3 other cases. In FIR No. 217/2000 under Sections 324, 341, 506/34 IPC, the appellant was acquitted. In FIR No. 291/05 dated 27th August, 2005 lodged under Sections 342, 341, 355, 325/34 IPC, and in FIR No. 366/05 dated 8th November, 2005 lodged under Sections 341, 323, 355 IPC of Police Station Hamirpur, pending before the concerned Courts. Taking note of the antecedents of the appellant, he does not deserve any indulgence.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and taken note of the contents of the Compromise Deed duly signed by the injured­ complainant Parveen Kumar and accused Rajesh Kumar and the supporting application (Crl. M.P. No. 180793 of 2019) filed by the complainant Parveen Kumar. Since the offences are compoundable in nature, we consider it appropriate to grant leave to the parties to compromise the matter. The appellant has been in custody since 28th May, 2019 for more than six months. Since the parties have voluntarily desired to enter into a compromise for sufficient and genuine reasons stated in the Deed, we permit compounding of the offences.

Accordingly, Crl. M.P. No. 180793 of 2019 is allowed.

In view of the compounding, the conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant who is in jail undergoing sentence shall be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case.

The appeal in the above terms is disposed of accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.