JASSI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE judgment and order dated 13.01.2003 passed in Sessions Trial no.14/1993, learned Additional Sessions Judge/1st F.T.C., Roorkee convicted the accused persons, namely, Jassi, Zalu, Biram, Baleshwar, Hari, Tirwa, Pirthi, Kunwarpal, Satpal and Sukkad under Sections 147 / 452 / 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, Section 325 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them appropriately. Accused Sukkad, Satpal and Kunwarpal were also convicted under Section 148 IPC and were sentenced appropriately. All the accused persons were, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 427 IPC. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, present criminal appeal was preferred by the convicts/appellants.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution story, Rajpal, Bishambar, Rajkala, Bhaktawari and Raj Bala sustained injuries during the course of incident. Two of the injured persons, namely, Bishambar and Rajpal are present in person in the Court. They are identified by their counsel Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, Advocate. They stated that they have buried their differences against the accused -appellants and have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court. Both injured Rajpal and Bishambar stated before this Court that Raj Kala is their sister -in -law and Bhaktavari is their aunt. Raj Bala is the sister -in -law of Rajpal and wife of Bishambar. They stated that they have also compounded the offences complained of against the appellants. Bhaktavari's son Dharampal is also present in person and says that his mother has compounded the offences charged and proved against the appellants. Dharampal is also identified by Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, Advocate. All of them stated that they are not keen to prosecute the appellants and they (appellants) should be exonerated of the charges levelled against them.

(3.) OFFENCES punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 325 I.P.C. are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The offences punishable under Sections 452 and 149 IPC are non -compoundable offences. The only question which is left for consideration of this Court is whether they (injured) should be permitted to compound the offences proved against the appellants or not?