I PARADESAMMA Vs. G YESU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the defacto-complainant to compound the offence and acquit the first respondent herein in Crl.A.No. 23 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the first respondent herein was convicted in S.C.No. 170/91 for the offence under Section 307 IPC and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for 6 months. Against that judgment the first resondent herein filed Crl.A. No.23/92 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry. At that stage, the defacto-complainant and the first respondent being closely related entered into compromise at the instance of elders and therefore they filed this petition.

(3.) On 30-1-1995, the defacto-complainant and the first respondent herein appeared before me and they were examined. They stated that the offence may be compounded as they are closely related and even the injuries are simple in nature. Today, the certified copy of wound Certificate of I. Paradesamma, injured, is produced in which it is stated that the injuries 1 to 6 are simple in nature. When all the injuries are simple in nature and the parties want to compound the offence, I think it just and proper to order for petitioner to compound the offence.