SHIVCHARAN & ANR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 30.6.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena in S.T.No. 45/2001.

(2.) The appellants were tried for offence under Sections 341, 307, 323, 294, 506 Part-II, 34 of IPC on the allegation that in the morning of 9.10.2010 they had stopped the complainant Roop Singh and in furtherance of common object the appellant No.2 assaulted on the head of Roop Singh by means of Farsa and the other accused persons assaulted the complainant Roop Singh and used abusive language and also extended the threat to his life. The Trial Court after recording the statements of the witnesses and after hearing both the parties acquitted the appellants for offence under Sections 307, 307/34 of IPC but convicted the appellants for offence under Sections 324, 323, 34 of IPC. Similarly, the Trial Court acquitted the appellants for offence under Sections 341, 294, 506 Part-II of IPC. In view of the application for compounding filed by the co-accused as well as the complainant, the Trial Court acquitted the co-accused Mahesh and Ratana @ Ramratan for the said offences. However, considering the fact that the incident took place about 7 years back and the appellants are the first offenders, therefore, the Trial Court extended the benefit of probation.

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the incident took place all of a sudden. The complainant has also compounded the offences with the other co-accused persons and since the appellants are in Government Service, therefore, it may be directed that conviction shall not affect their services. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajbir vs. State of Haryana, 1985 AIR(SC) 1278.