SUSHIL PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant No. 1 has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and Appellant No. 2. has been convicted for the offence under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that there is a case and counter case and there was compromise between the parties in the lower court itself and even the informant has supported the compromise but the learned lower court on technical reason did not give effect to the compromise. Learned Counsel for the Appellants further submits that even the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable and relied upon a decision reported in decisionMahesh Chand and Ors. V/s. The State of Rajasthan., 1988 AIR(SC) 2111

(3.) In view of the facts and circumstances that the parties have compromised and they are residents of the same village and the occurrence is of the year 1984, a lenient view should be taken with regard to compounding. In the special facts and circumstances of this case as well as the fact that Appellant No. 2 is a lawyer in Chapra Civil Court and since the counter case has ended in compromise, hence under the facts and circumstances the permission is granted to compound the offence and the offence is compounded and hence the order of conviction and sentence is set aside and the appeal is allowed.