SHEO BACHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. Amar Saran assisted by Sri S. K. Dubey, learned Counsel for the revisionists and Mr. Patanj ali Misra, learned A. G. A. assisted by Mr. Bipin Bihari appearing for the complainant injured persons.

(2.) THERE are two arguments of Mr. Saran noted below: (A) That the lower Court record could not be received because of it being weeded out as per report received from the lower Court noted in the order-sheet of the revision petition. So the revisionists should be acquitted following the view taken by this Court while deciding Criminal Revision No. 1218 of 1984 vide judgment dated 21-11-1997. (B) That there is a joint compromise peti tion which has been verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia. The conviction has been recorded under Section 307, I. P. C. but the revisionists deserve the benefit of compromise as the offence can at best go under Section 324, I. P. C. which is a compoundable offence with permission of the Court. For this purpose. Mr. Saran drew the attention of the Court about injury to Keshav as well as Phakir Chandra. He has argued that the injuries are of simple nature and none of the injuries is on the vital part of the body and there is no opinion expressed that any of the injuries was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In such circumstan ces the allegation should not constitute the offence punishable under Section 307, I. P. C. rather they should go under Section 324, I. P. C.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY the parties are granted permission to compromise and the compromise petition verified by the C. J. M. on 21-1-1997 is accepted. The revisionists/accused persons are acquitted under the provisions of Section 320 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They are discharged from liability of the bail bond. Revision allowed. .