VINOD AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A first information report was lodged by the informant/injured Naga Surendra Bharti Maharaj against Satish Kumar, Vinod, Dhan Singh and Arjun on 12.01.1997, in PS Pathri for the offences punishable under Sections 307/324 IPC. After the investigation, charge sheet against the said accused persons was submitted against in respect of the selfsame offence. When the trial commenced, charge against them was framed in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused persons underwent the trial. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court, vide order dated 20.09.2001, convicted appellants Vinod, Satish and Arjun for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced them appropriately. Co-accused Dhan Singh was however, acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, Vinod, Satish and Arjun preferred this criminal appeal.

(2.) CRMA No. 796 of 2013 is filed by the injured Naga Surendra Bharti Maharaj for permitting him to compound the offence punishable under Section 307 /34 IPC against the accused persons. Naga Surendra Bharati Marharaj is present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Narendra Singh Bisht. Informant/injured submitted that he is not willing to prosecute the accused persons. He submitted that since the accused persons are like sons to him, therefore, he has exonerated them. Accused persons, namely, Vinod, Satish and Arjun are present before the Court. They are duly identified by their counsel Mr. M.S.Tyagi, Advocate.

(3.) An offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is noncompoundable offence within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The question is whether the injured should be permitted to compound such an offence against the accused persons/appellants or not