DHAPUR MUNIYA SHRI SUKHRAM MUNIA Vs. LUNJABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision petition under Section 397, 401 of the Cr.P.C. petitioner Dhapu Muniya has challenged the order dated 28.04.2012 passed in Cr.A. No.36/12 by the Sessions Judge, Jhabua upholding the conviction of the accused for offence under Sections 304 & 324/34 of IPC, however the custodial sentence was reduced by the appellate Court from 2 years to till rising of the Court only and the fine amount was maintained.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that on 23.06.2008 complainant Dhapubai resident of village Kachnariya was tilling the land with her father; when at 6 am in the morning the accused respondents with whom there was an agricultural dispute came on the spot and started scolding them that when they had sown the field why were the complainant tilling the land. When Dhapubai stated that the land belonged to them, accused Lunjabai started grappling with her. Accused Bhunda exhorted Lunjabai to assault and Dhapubai received injuries on her left hand since Lunjabai bit her with her teeth. Dhapubai shouted for help, at that time her father Sukhram, sister Bhura and Kalla came to the spot and intervened. The report was filed at P.S. Bamnia. The FIR was recorded and investigation was launched. Crime was registered at No.125/08 and Dhapubai was sent to her medical examination. The spot map was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused persons were arrested. The accused were tried for offence under Sections 324 and 324/34 of IPC. They abjured their guilt and stated that they were falsely implicated in the matter. The trial Court convicted the accused. The appeal was filed by the accused persons which upheld the conviction and reduced the custodial sentence as stated above and hence the present revision.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that during the pendency of the appeal, the matter had been compromised and basically there was an old enmity between the parties due to the agricultural land dispute and a crosscase had also been registered by the accused against the complainant party. Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to para16 of the impugned judgment, to point out that although there was a compromise between the parties, at the time of registering the compromise Dhapubai had disagreed and hence the conviction. Counsel submitted that the impugned order was without merit since the Court had already come to a finding that the matter was petty and could be settled instead of convicting the accused. The appellate Court ought to have acquitted the accused from the said offence. Counsel prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and the accused properly convicted.