BHANWAR SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by three appellants against the judgment of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta, District Nagaur, in Sessions Case No.6/2006 dated 27.6.2006, whereby he convicted the accused appellants u/s. 420 Penal Code and sentenced each one of them to three years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.5000.00 and in default, to further undergo six months' S.I. Each of them was also convicted under Sec. 3(1)(v) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter referred-to as "the Act" and sentenced to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000.00 and in default, to further undergo four months' S.I.

(2.) The charges against the accused appellants were that they obtained loan from Jaipur Nagaur Anchlik Gramin Bank, Branch Khajwana, District Nagaur on 20.6.2005 by mortgaging Khasra Nos. 3408 and 3409, which were already sold to complainant Pancha Ram, whereby they cheated complainant Pancha Ram, who was a member of the S.C./S.T. by interfering with the rights of a member of S.C. The report of the incident was lodged by complainant Pancha Ram at S.P.Office, Nagaur vide Ex.P.3, which was sent for investigation to the Circle Officer, Merta. After investigation, all the three accused were challaned u/ss. 420 Penal Code and Sec.3(1)(v) of the Act, to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. The statements of the accused u/s. 313 Cr.PC were recorded. They led no evidence in their defence. After hearing, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta convicted the accused appellants as above.

(3.) During this appeal, a compromise has been filed between the parties for the offence u/s. 420 Penal Code in which it is stated that the complainant Pancha Ram does not want to proceed further in the matter on account of mutual relations of the parties, whereby they have compromised. Since the offence u/s. 420 Penal Code is not compoundable straightway but can be compounded with the permission of the Court. Permission has also been sought, which is granted. The compromise has been verified between the parties today in the court itself, who are present in person.