SUBHASH CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS namely Subhash Chand, Jai Pal, Jitender, Sandeep, Sharvan and Om Parkash have filed the present appeal before this Court to challenge their conviction under Sections 148/149, 323/325/307/506 IPC and sentence awarded by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari. However, during pendency of the appeal, accused/appellant No. 4 -Sandeep son of Om Parkash died. Hence, the appeal now survives only qua appellants No. 1 to 3, 5 and 6. The appeal was admitted on 09.09.2005 and the sentence of the appellants were also suspended by this Court. During pendency of the appeal, there was a compromise between the appellants and the complainant and an application was moved before this Court by stating that the parties have compromised their dispute and the complainant has no interest to pursue the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants. Vide order dated 05.11.2012, the appeal was ordered to be listed for final disposal. A direction was issued by this Court on 03.04.2013 to the appellants and the complainant as well as any other affected party to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari for recording of their statements with regard to compromise. A direction was also issued to the Court below to send a report after recording the statements of the parties.

(2.) IN response to the directions issued by this Court on 03.04.2013, a report along with statements of the parties has been sent by District and Sessions Judge, Rewari. It has been stated by the appellants as well as complainant that the compromise has been effected between them and they are satisfied as the same is without any fear, threat or inducement. Copy of the compromise deed, which has been signed by both the parties, was filed before the Court below along with the status report. It has also been mentioned that accused/appellant No. 4 -Sandeep has died during pendency of the appeal and both the parties have decided to resolve their differences and have amicably settled their dispute with the intervention of the relatives and respectables from both the sides. Learned counsel also submits that both the parties are resident of same village and to maintain peace and harmony and cordial relation and to avoid any bad blood between the parties, a compromise has been effected and they want to lead peaceful life in the village. The complainant has specifically stated that he does not want to proceed further with the case and he has no objection, if the appellants are acquitted of the charge on the basis of compromise.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the appellants have been convicted by the Court below and during pendency of the trial, there was a compromise between the appellants and the complainant. The statements of injured have also been recorded. The complainant as well as injured appeared before the Court below and are having no objection in acquittal of the appellants.