Court No. - 45
1. Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2934 of 2018 Revisionist :- Surajveer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Onkar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Dhama
2. Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3030 of 2018 Revisionist :- Udaivir And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Dubey,Chandra Bhan Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
3. Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2936 of 2018 Revisionist :- Gopal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Onkar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Dhama
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsels for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and Sri Rajkumar Dhama, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
The abovenoted Criminal Revisions are directed against the judgement and order dated 03.8.2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Baghpat, in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2017 (Surajveer and others Vs. State of U.P.), whereby the judgement and order dated 22.8.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, in Case No. 1249 of 1999 arising out of Case Crime No. 320 of 1999, by which the revisionists were convicted under Sections 147, 148, 324 & 326 IPC and awarded sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC, three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC & seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 IPC and 10,000/- fine and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to further undergo six months additional imprisonment, has been confirmed under Sections 147, 148, 324/149 & 326/149 IPC.
It has been submitted that the parties to the dispute entered into compromise before the Appellate Court on 21.12.2012. The compromise was signed by the informant and the injured, Satish, who is opposite party no. 2 in revision. On the one hand by the accuseds, Surajveer, Udayveer, Rohtas and Gopal and on the other hand the injured opposite party No.2 and informant prayed before the appellate court that the appeal may be decided in terms of their compromise. The appellate court has recorded the finding that the offence under Section 326 proved against the revisionists is not compoundable and therefore the appeal cannot be decided in terms of compromise.
The counsel for the revisionist has referred to the judgments of the Apex Court in support of his contention that even the offfence under Section 326 I.P.C. which is non-compoundable cannot come in the way of revisionist being directed in terms of compromise by holding that the sentence already undergone shall be sufficient punishment for the accused and dispose of the matter finally, in the larger interest of justice. The judgements referred to are Nanda Gopalan Vs. State Vs. Kerala, 2015 (5) JT 151; Surendra Nath Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa, 1991 AIR (SC) 2181, Jetha Ram and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006(9) SCC 255 and Bharti Vs. State of Haryana, 2014 (2) JT 450.
In view of the above, argument and the case laws was relied upon by the revisionists, this revision is decided by holding that in view of the compromise between the parties the sentence awarded to the accuseds-revisionits are reduced period already undergone and it shall be considered to be the final punishment for the revisionists. However the fine directed to be paid by the trial court shall be deposited by the revisionists within two months after their release from jail in pursuance of this order.
Criminal Revisions are disposed off in the above terms.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 Ruchi Agrahari