AMRA Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Amra was convicted under section 326 I. P. C. and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default of the payment of fine to further under go one months simple imprisonment by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur by his judgment dated 27.4.82. He went in appeal. His appeal was partly allowed. His conviction was maintained, but the sentence was reduced to six months imprisonment. The sentence of fine was maintained. He has not filed this revision through Jail.

(2.) I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the learned Amicus Curiae did not challenge the conviction of the accused. The only submission made by him is that the injured victim and the accused have arrived at a compromise. As such a lenient view should be adopted in the matter of sentence. Reliance was placed on Rampujan Vs. State of U.P. (A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2418). In the reply, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that no further reduction in the sentence was called for. I have taken the respective submissions into consideration.

(3.) Admittedly, there was compromise between the injured victim and the accused. It was on the basis of the compromise that the accused was acquitted of the offences under sections 323 and 325 I. P. C. In the case of Ram Pujan (supra) it was observed that the fact of compromise could be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence even if the offence for which the accused was sentenced was non-compoundable.