Ramraja Singh and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 15.10.1998 passed by learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Tikamgarh in Special No. 143/1997, whereby each of the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:

CONVICTION

SENTENCE

FINE

DEFAULT SENTENCE

436 read with section 149 of IPC

7 years'' R.I.

Rs. 5, 000

2 years R.I.

450 read with section 149 of IPC.

5 years'' R.I.

Rs. 3, 000/

1 year R.I.

506-B read with section 149 of IPC

3 years'' R.I.

Rs. 3, 000/

1 year R.I.

336 read with section 149 of IPC

3 months'' R.I.

-

-

147 of IPC

1 year R.I.

-

-

Prosecution''s case, in short, is that, on 14.10.1991, Acchu Ahirwar, brother of Hardas had lodged an FIR against the appellants at Police Station Jatara, District Tikamgar that the appellants grazed their cattle in his field. To take revenge with the complainant and his brother, the appellants on 15.10.1991 at about 7 p.m., entered in the house of the complainant Hardas having sticks in their hands and threatened him that they will set his house on fire. Thereafter, they tried to assault the complainant but, he ran away from the spot and in the meantime, the appellants set his house on fire. On shouting of the complainant, some villagers were collected and they poured water on the house of the complainant. During such procedure, the appellants pelted stones on the villagers, causing injuries to Gudwa Ahirwar, Prakash Parasram and Kishanlal. An FIR was lodged by the complainant Hardas at Police Station Jatara. The injured persons were sent to the Government Hospital, Jatara for their medico legal examination and treatment. Dr. H.N.Naik found injuries to all the injured persons caused by hard and blunt objects. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge (Under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter it will be referred to as the ''Special Act''), Tikamgarh (The Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh).

The appellants abjured their guilt. They did not take any specific plea but, it is submitted that some of them were not present at the time of the incident and they were falsely implicated. In defence, Chhakki (D.W.1), Sitaram (D.W.2), Puran (D.W.3) were examined.

After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, learned Special Judge, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

Hardas, the complainant in the case has applied for the compromise in the present appeal with I.A.No. 9097/2012 and also sought the permission to do compromise. A compromise application I.A. No. 9095/2012 is also submitted. Hardas has shown his willingness to do compromise. His willingness is duly verified by the Registrar Judicial-II and it was directed that the application will be considered during the judgment.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that a compromise took place between the parties and the complainant is duly compensated. The appellants have felt the harassment of the trial and this appeal since last 14 years and therefore, they may not be sent to the jail again. They were in custody for 2 months during the trial and appeal. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that in the light of the compromise either the appellants be acquitted or their sentence may be reduced to the period, which they have already undergone in the custody.

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the complainant is willing to do the compromise voluntarily and he has filed a compromise also, which is duly verified by the Registrar Judicial-II. At present, only offence punishable u/s 506-B of IPC is compoundable, whereas offences u/s 436 and 450 of IPC are not compoundable. Under such circumstances, permission of compromise is given for the offence punishable u/s 506-B of IPC and compromise is accepted for that crime. In the result, the appellants shall be acquitted from the charges of offence punishable u/s 506-B of IPC, due to compromise, whereas compromise will be considered for reduction of sentence imposed upon the appellants for the remaining offences.

The appellants have not challenged the conviction directed against them but, they have only prayed for reduction of the sentence. Each of the appellants remained in the custody for 2 months. They have faced the trial and appeal for at least 14 years and most important fact is that the complainant is duly compensated by the appellants and he has filed the compromise with the appellants. Under such circumstances, if all the grounds are considered simultaneously then, it is a fit case in which sentence of the appellants may be reduced to the period, which they have already under gone in the custody. A huge amount of fine is already imposed by the trial Court upon the appellants and the complainant has entered into the compromise because he is duly compensated and therefore, it is not necessary to enhance the fine imposed upon the appellants.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, appeal filed by the appellants is hereby partly allowed. Conviction as well as sentence directed against the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 506 read with section 149 of IPC is hereby set aside. The appellants shall be entitled to get the fine amount back, if they have deposited before the trial Court for that offence, whereas the conviction directed for offence punishable u/s 436 read with section 149 and section 450 read with section 149 of IPC is hereby maintained but, sentence is reduced to the period, which they have already undergone in the custody. There is no change in the fine imposed upon the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 436 read with section 149 and section 450 read with section 149 of IPC. The appellants are directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today, failing which they shall undergo the default sentence as prescribed by the trial Court.

Presence of the appellants is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court with its record for information and compliance.