INDIRABAI RAGHUNATH GUND Vs. SURESH MALU JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the original complainant Indirabai Raghunath Gund against the acquittal of the Respondent No. 1 of the offence under Sections 447, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Thane dated 31.1.1984. It appears that as the allegation of the complainant was that the Respondent No. 1 had committed the offences under Sections 447 and 323 along with several other persons the charge under Section 114, I.P.C. was framed. However in this appeal only the Respondent No. 1 has been joined and therefore the acquittal of the Respondent No. 1 under Section 114, I.P.C. cannot be interferred.

(2.) AS far as the remaining two offences are concerned the complainant and the accused (Respondent No. 1) have compounded the offences. The learned Advocate for the said parties pray for an order accordingly.

(3.) BOTH the offences are compoundable by the person in possession of the property trespassed upon and the person to whom the hurt is caused respectively. That person in this case is the complainant. She has chosen to compound the offences with the respondent. Consequently, the order of acquittal of the respondent for the offence under Sections 447 and 323, I.P.C. has to be confirmed. The learned Public Prosecutor has no objection for the compounding of the offences by the parties.