RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who are the accused and the complainant, Shri Ram, who was the person injured as a result of firing, have appeared before us and stated that they wish to compound the offence. The offence for which both the appellants have been convicted is one under S. 307 read with S. 34 of the IPC, but having regard to the nature of the injury sustained by Shri Ram, we think that the proper offence for which the appellants should have been convicted was under S. 324 read with section 34. Shri Ram received only one injury on the shoulder and that was also in the nature of simple hurt. We would, therefore, convert the conviction of the appellants to one under S. 324 read with S. 34. Since the parties belong to the same village and desire to compound the offence, we think, in the larger interest of peace and harmony between the parties and having regard to the nature of the injury, that it would be proper to allow the parties to compound the offence.

(2.) We accordingly acquit the appellants of the offence under S. 324 read with S. 34. The appeals will stand disposed of accordingly.