SARJERAO SHAMRAO DHAS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants who are the original accused Nos. 1 to 5, 7 to 17, 20, 21 and 23 have been mainly convicted under sections 307 read with 34 of I. P. C. by the learned Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Solhapur in Sessions Case No. 39/86. In the said case, all the appellants have been convicted under sections 147 and 148 I. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for 1 year and 2 years respectively on those counts. They have also been convicted under section 307 read with 149 I. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- i. d. R. I. for 3 months. They had also been convicted under section 332 read with 149 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 2 years and under section 135 (1) of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) ON the last occasion i. e. 2-12-2002 when this matter came up for hearing, all the injured witnesses in the said case i. e. P. W. 2 Balu Shivdas Dhas, p. W. 5 Vithal Balbhim Dhas, P. W. 6 Chandrakant Kerba Dhas, P. W. 8 kashinath Shankar Dhas, P. W. 9 Laxman Limbaraj Dhas and P. W. 10 Arjun krishna Dhas were personally present before this Court and they showed their desire to settle the matter amicably. It was stated on behalf of the injured witnesses that they have settled the matter amongst themselves and they are residing amicably and peacefully in the village. I ascertained that they had voluntarily decided to settle the matter. Hence, time was given to them till today to file their affidavits. Accordingly, the necessary affidavits by all of them have been filed and the said affidavits are taken on record and marked 'x' (colly.) for identification. The translation of the said affidavits is marked as X-l (colly. ).

(3.) HOWEVER, it is seen that the appellants/accused have been mainly convicted under section 307 of I. P. C. which is a non-compoundable offence, hence, i cannot acquit the appellants/accused persons on the basis of the said compromise. However, useful reference may be made to the case reported in 1995 supp. (4) S. C. C. page 631 (Salim and others v. State of M. P.)1, wherein similar facts arose. In the said case, the appellants were convicted under section 307 read with 34 I. P. C. The Apex Court had observed thus :-