BALLAL ALIAS BALWANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAYARAM Vithal Kamble (Respondent No.2) resident of Khamb, Tal: Roha, Dist: Raigad is present. He states that he wants to compromise the matter and has compromised the matter with the accused-appellant Ballal @ Balwant Purushottam Nene before the Court and he does not want to proceed further with his complaint to the police. He states that Bhiku Balu admitted in the hospital. Mr. Kamble says that he had a talk with Balu and the said Balu has agreed to compromise the matter in the same manner with the appellant. Counsel for the Respondent has produced written consent given by the said Balu for compromising and withdrawing his complaint against the accused ( the same is taken on record). In view of this, the Judgment of conviction passed by the Special Judge, Raigad-Alibag dated 19.6.1993 is set aside. APP for the State states that he has no objection in compromising the matter between the appellant-accused and Respondents Nos.2 and 4.

(2.) OFFENCE under the Atrocities Act, 1988 is not compoundable but Mr. Adik, Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the Supreme Court Judgment in Mahesh Chand and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1988 SC 2111 : (1988) 1 JT 618 : 1988 ALL Cri.C. 186 : (1988) 2 Cur.L.J. (C & Cri.) 141, wherein even though the offence under section 307 was not compoundable, the Supreme Court considering the facts of the case, ordered the Trial Court to permit to compound the offences.