HARKISHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Harkishan and three others were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 506 of IPC. Co -accused persons Ram Chandra, Ashok and Gangaram were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 506 of IPC. All the four convicts were sentenced appropriately by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, vide judgment and order dated 04.08.2006. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentences, criminal appeal was preferred by the convicts, which criminal was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur (Udham Singh Nagar), vide judgment and order dated 21.12.2011. Aggrieved against the confirmation of conviction and sentences, present Criminal Revision was preferred by the convicts.

(2.) A compounding application being CRMA No. 372 of 2014 has been filed by the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled the dispute amicably. Injured Bhura has filed an affidavit for seeking the permission to compound the offences against the convicts. Injured Bhura is present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Deep Joshi, Advocate, who says that he has no grievance against the revisionists, in as much as, they are now living peacefully and have maintained cordial relations with each other. An affidavit is also filed by one of the accused, namely, Harkishan (revisionist No. 1) in support of the statement of the injured.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another : (2013), 1 SCC (Cri) 160, in which -Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as below: