VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13/9/2011 passed by Sessions Judge,Guna in S.T.No. 160/2011; whereby, appellants have been held guilty for offence under Section 326/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years RI each with fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month RI.

(2.) After filing of this appeal, application preferred by appellant No. 2 for suspension of his jail sentence was allowed vide order dated 03/10/2011; whereas,application for suspension of jail sentence preferred by appellant No. 1 was allowed vide order dated 20/10/2011. Both are on bail but before grant of suspension of sentence, appellant No. 1 already suffered incarceration of five months and appellant No. 2 suffered incarceration for one month.

(3.) It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that during trial application for compromise was filed by parties in respect of offence under Section 323 of IPC but since the matter was at the stage of final arguments, therefore, application was rejected by trial Court. Both the parties are relatives. Appellant No. 1 is son-in-law of complainant Sentrilal and because of domestic dispute, verbal altercation resulted into physical abuse and since both the parties are close relatives, therefore, they wanted to settle the matter from the trial stage itself. It is further submitted that since Section 326 of IPC was not compoundable therefore, compromise could not take place; however, out of three years conviction, appellant No. 1, who was allegedly the main assailant, suffered incarceration of five months and as per the Mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jetha Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC 255 and recent pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Manjit Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and Anr., (Criminal Appeal No. 1090/2019 decided on 22 nd July, 2019), the case deserves to be considered sympathetically and appellants be allowed to suffer jail sentence already undergone by them while maintaining the conviction.