RUKMINI CHIDANAND KORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellants/original accused Nos. 2 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 500/- each and conviction of the first appellant/original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and sentence of simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/- imposed upon the said appellant on conclusion of Sessions Case No. 61 of 1996 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur. The learned counsel for the first informant has tendered an affidavit of the first informant-victim who is present in the Court stating that the parties are cousins and they have settled their disputes amicably. It is stated that the incident is of 22-3-1995, that is it has occurred about 17-years ago and therefore the first informant wants that the matter may be settled. The learned counsel for the appellants in this context states that the appellants restrict their appeal to the question of the sentence. The appellants were in custody from 26-3-1995 to 28-3-1995 when they were arrested till they were bailed out on 7-4-1995. They were presumably again taken in custody on 31-5-1997 upon their conviction and admitted to bail by this Court by the order dated 20-6-1997 and thus may have been in jail for about 30 days.

(2.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that since the offence is one punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, the appellants may not be let off on the sentence already undergone, though the parties have amicably settled the disputes. He submits that it would amount to allowing composition of an offence which is otherwise not compoundable.

(3.) In the context of the arguments advanced, I have considered the facts unfolded by the evidence on record. It appears that the complainant Revansiddha owns land which is adjacent to the land of the accused persons. There was a dispute about right of way. He states that on 22-3-1995 the appellants came and assaulted him with axe and sticks. Appellant Amogsidha Baburao Mhamane is alleged to have hit the victim on his head with an axe. Appellant No. 1 Rukmini Chidanand Kore is also alleged to have hit the victim on his head with a sickle. The injury by the sickle is likely to have been found to be an incised wound, since between axe and sickle, sickle was more likely to produce an incised wound and the axe was more likely to produce a contused lacerated wound. The injuries proved by the evidence of PW-2 Dr. Pradeep Chanchure are one incised wound on the vault of the skull, another incised wound on supra-scapular region, six contused lacerated wound on various parts of the head, four contusions on the shoulder and infra-scapular region and one abrasion on the right scapular region. Thus it is possible that Rukmini was held to be the author of the incised wound on the vault of the skull, whereas the other appellants were the authors of the injuries on the other parts of the victim's body. Rukmini has been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC whereas the others have been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. Rukmini has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year whereas the others have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. Considering the genesis of the incident as given by the first informant PW-1 Revansiddha, since a more serious injury was attributed to Rukmini rather than the other accused, uniform reduction in sentence of imprisonment by increasing the fine proportionately to compensate the first informant would serve the ends of justice in the peculiar circumstance of the parties being close relatives, having settled their disputes, as also the fact that the incident occurred about 17-years ago and the appellants have been living in the shadow of conviction for the last fifteen years. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants for the offences, as aforementioned, is maintained. The sentence imposed upon them is, however, reduced to imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. If the fine amount is not deposited with the trial Court within a period of one month, the learned trial Judge shall have appellants arrested and committed to prison to serve their sentence. Upon the fine being deposited, the entire amount shall be paid to the first informant towards compensation. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.