MUSTAKEEM Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PW 2 Manjoor Hasan, lodged a first information report against Mustakeem, Shakeel and Naseem on 20.06.1994, in PS Jwalapur, Haridwar, for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. After the investigation, a charge -sheet against them was filed for the selfsame offence. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial commenced and prosecution opened it's case, the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. was framed against the accused -persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(2.) PW 1 Mohd. Hasan, PW 2 Manzoor Hasan, PW 3 Jahid, PW 4 Doctor K.P. Sarabhai, PW 5 Doctor Vijay Bahadur and PW 6 SI Intezar Ali were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they said that they have been falsely implicated in the case. DW 1 Mohd. Alam was examined in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Trial Court convicted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them appropriately, vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2001. Aggrieved against the impugned Judgment and Order, present Criminal Appeal was preferred.

(3.) THE offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. is not a compoundable offence within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The question, therefore, arises -whether the legal heirs of the injured should be permitted to compound the offence complained of, and proved against the appellants?