Sriram Singh and Anr. vs State of U.P.

M.C. Agarwal, J.—This is an appeal by appellants Shriram Singh and his son Ajai Kumar against the judgment and order dated 891979 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital whereby they were convicted for offences under Sections 324, 324/34, 326 and 326/34, IPC for causing hurt to Bhumahesh Chandra and Smt. Bhagwati Devi and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each under Section 324, IPC two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 324/34, IPC and three and a half years rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences under Sections 326 and 326/34, IPC. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

During the pendency of this appeal the parties entered into a compromise which has been filed vide application No. 32325 of 1995 dated 1371995 annexing therewith the affidavits of the victims Bhumahesh Chandra and Smt. Bhagwati Devi which were sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital for verification and have been received after verification. According to the affidavits the parties have developed good relations and want that Ajai Kumar appellant be acquitted. So far as the appellant Shriram is concerned he has died. The affidavits also state that most of the injuries were caused by appellant Shriram deceased. The appeal of Shriram has, therefore, abated.

As regards Ajai Kumar appellant the offence under Section 324, IPC is compoundable with the leave of the court while an offence under Section 326, IPC is not compoundable. A permission to compound the offence under Section 324, IPC is hereby granted. However, since an offence under Section 326, IPC cannot be compounded in terms of provisions of Section 320, Cr PC that offence cannot be allowed to be compounded. The commission of the offence is admitted in the compromise petition.

Sri Ravindra Rai, learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, contended that looking to the circumstances of the case the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone. It was pointed out that at the time of incident he was a young lad of 17 years of age and other accused being his father the boy must have acted under the father''s influence. It was also contended that since the parties are neighbours and have in due course of time developed cordial relations and the victims do not want to punish him any more, the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone. The record shows that the appellant Ajai Kumar was under detention during the trial for a short time and then after his conviction the Court granted bail to him.

In view of the compromise, the desire of the victims and other circumstances of the case the appellant''s appeal against conviction under Section 326, IPC deserves to be partly allowed so as to reduce the sentence awarded to him to period already undergone.

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed as under:

In view of the compounding of the offence, the conviction and sentence passed for the offences under Sections 324 and 324/34, IPC are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the said offences. As regards the conviction for the offences under Sections 326 and 326/34, IPC the conviction of the appellant is sustained but the period of sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellant Ajai Kumar is on bail and need not surrender. The bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.

The appeal of Shriram appellant No. 1 is dismissed as having abated.