AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dharnidhar Jha, J.—Sri S.N.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel appears for the Appellants and submits that three I.A''s have been filed and one of them is from Manoj Kumar Singh, son of Appellant Shashi Shekhar Prasad Singh by which it has been pointed out that Appellant No. 4 Asheshwar Prasad Singh the grand father of the deponent died in the month of July, 1998.
Considering the statement made on oath regarding death of Appellant No. 4 Asheshwar Prasad Singh which statement has been made by the grand son of the deceased Appellant the appeal of Asheshwar Prasad Singh abates. Now, the appeals only of Shashi Shekhar Prasad Singh, Anil Kumar Singh and Ganga Bishnu Singh survive.
Two I. As. bearing No. 848 and 849 of 2004 have been filed. Though one of the I. As. a joint compromise petition has been placed on record and through the other, permission of this Court has been sought for allowing the parties for compounding the offence u/s 320(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Offence u/s 324 is compoundable with the permission of the court and this Court does not have any inhibition in granting the permission to the parties for compounding the offence. The effect of compounding as may appear from the very provision of Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure is acquittal of the Appellants No. 1 and 2 who were convicted u/s 324 IPC and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The Appellant No. 3 was sentenced u/s 323 IPC and was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The offence itself is compoundable. This is well settled law that if the accused persons get acquitted of main offences then the common object vanishes and no such accused could be convicted for being the member of unlawful assembly with any particular common object and committing the offence of rioting simplicitor or after being armed with any deadly weapon. Under that principle of law the conviction of Appellants 1 and 2 u/s 148 IPC is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed in terms as indicated above.
The two I. As. filed in the present appeal is also disposed of.