PUNARAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Punaram stands convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years by the first Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, Camp, Mahasamund on 26.2.1990 in Sessions Trial No. 159/88.

(2.) The facts briefly stated are as under: Appellants Purnaram is the brother in -law (Jija) of complainant injured Tarachand. On 26.1.1988 Tarachand was threshing his paddy crop in his threshing yard (Kothar). The appellant had also kept his crop for threshing in kothar of Tarachand. Appellant had requested Tarachand to complete his threshing hurriedly so that he may also thresh his crop. On this account, some quarrel took place between them. At about 3.00 p.m. Tarachand was standing at a place where some stones were lying. There also they entered into quarrel. The allegations are that the appellant assaulted victim- Tarachand by a stone who received injuries on his skull. In medical investigation, it was found that there was liner fracture in the temporal bone of victim Tarachand. The charge-sheet was filed under Section 307 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge held that an offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out, however, the appellant was liable for punishment under Section 326 IPC. Accordingly, he was convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years.. During the pendency of the appeal, complainant Tarachand and appellant Puranaram jointly filed an application (IA No. 1/2009) under Section 320 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that they have entered into compromise and the complainant victim does not want any action to be taken against the appellant. He has prayed for compounding the offence on the basis of compromise and for acquittal of appellant accused Purnaram.

(3.) Mr. Arun Kochar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment. He has pressed the. application (IA No. 1/2009) filed under Section 320(5) Cr,PC. He also argued on sentence praying that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced from 4 years to the period already undergone. He relied on judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Surendra Nath Mohanty and Anr. v. State of Orissa and in Jalaluddin v. State of U.P.