Suryakant Achyutrao Jogdand And ORS v. State Of Maha

{1} CRI.APPEAL 600 OF 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 909 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.600 OF 2003 Suryakant s/o. Achyutrao Jogdand Age: 21 years, Occu.: Agriculture.

Prabhu s/o Pandharinath Sonwane Age: 52 years, Occu.: Agriculture.

3.

Anurath s/o Ramkishan Jogdand Age: 21 years, Occu.: Agriculture.

4.

Subhash s/o. Govind Jogdand Age: 52 years, Occu.: Agriculture.

5.

Bibishan s/o. Tukaram Jogdand Age: 30 years, Occu.: Agriculture.

6.

Ram s/o. Manohar Jogdand Age: 30 years, Occu.: Agriculture.

7.

Baliram s/o. Pandhari Sonwane Age: 37 years, Occu.: Agriculture.

8.

Bhagirath s/o. Smbhaji Sonwane Age: 27 years, Occu.: Agriculture 9.

Sanjay s/o. Uttamrao Ban.

Age: 26 years, Occu.: Agriculture.

10.

Rajjak s/o. Sahajakhan Pathan Age: 45 years, Occu.: Agriculture.

11.

Babru @ Baban s/o. Pandhari Sonwane Age: 37 years, Occu.: Agriculture.

12.

Sudam s/o. Tukaram Jogdand Age: 34 years, Occu.: Agriculture.

13.

Ayub s/o. Rajjak Pathan Age: 21 years, Occ.: Agriculture.

14.

Chandpasha s/o. Rajakhan Pathan Age: 37 years, Occu.: Agriculture.

{2} CRI.APPEAL 600 OF 2003 15.

Shivaji Manohar Jogdand Age: 32 years, Occu.: Agriculture.

16.

Vijaykumar s/o. Uttmrao Ban.

Age: 22 years, Occu.: Agriculture.

All resident of village DigholDeshpande, Taluka Renapur, Dist.Latur.

..Appellants

VERSUS

.

The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ...

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3383 OF 2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.600 OF 2003 Suryakant s/o. Achyutrao Jogdand Age: 37 years, Occu.: Agril.

Prabhu s/o Pandharinath Sonwane Age: 68 years, Occu.: Agril.

3.

Anurath s/o Ramkishan Jogdand Age: 37 years, Occu.: Agril.

4.

Subhash s/o. Govind Jogdand Age: 68 years, Occu.: Agril.

5.

Bibishan s/o. Tukaram Jogdand Age: 46 years, Occu.: Agril.

6.

Ram s/o. Manohar Jogdand Age: 46 years, Occu.: Agril.

7.

Baliram s/o. Pandhari Sonwane Age: 53 years, Occu.: Agril.

8.

Bhagirath s/o. Sambhaji Sonwane Age: 43 years, Occu.: Agril.

9.

Sanjay s/o. Uttamrao Ban.

Age: 42 years, Occu.: Agril.

{3} CRI.APPEAL 600 OF 2003 10.

Rajjak s/o. Sahajakhan Pathan Age: 61 years, Occu.: Agril.

11.

Babru @ Baban s/o. Pandhari Sonwane Age: 53 years, Occu.: Agril.

12.

Sudam s/o. Tukaram Jogdand Age: 50 years, Occu.: Agril.

13.

Ayub s/o. Rajjak Pathan Age: 37 years, Occ.: Agril.

14.

Chandpasha s/o. Rajakhan Pathan Age: 53 years, Occu.: Agril.

15.

Shivaji Manohar Jogdand Age: 48 years, Occu.: Agril.

16.

Vijaykumar s/o. Uttamrao Ban.

Age: 38 years, Occu.: Agril.

All R/o.Village Dighol-Deshpande, Taluka Renapur, Dist.Latur.

..Applicants

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra Bharat s/o. Kondiba Randive Age: 55 years, Occu.: Labour R/o. Village Dighol-Deshpande, Tq.Renapur, District Latur.

..Respondents ...

Advocate for Appellants - Applicants : Shri Eknath P. Sawant APP for Respondent State : Shri A.P.Basarkar Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Cri.Appln.3383 of 2019) : Shri S.P.Kausalye ...

CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.

DATE: 15th October , 2019

{4} CRI.APPEAL 600 OF 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT:- The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2003 have preferred Criminal Application No.3383 of 2019 seeking compounding of the ofences for which they have been convicted by the Trial Court and to acquit them of the said ofences. The appellants were prosecuted in Special Case No.1 of 2001 for the ofences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 294, 427, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities Act'). The Crime came to be registered against the appellants on a report lodged by respondent No.2 in Criminal Application No.3383 of 2019, namely Bharat Kondiba Randive.

The Trial Court vide the impugned Judgment and order dated 31.07.2003 acquitted the appellants of the ofences punishable under Sections 148, 294, 427, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC as well as of the ofence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. The Trial Court, however, has convicted the appellants for the ofences punishable under Sections 147 and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC and under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC as well as under Section 504 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

{5} CRI.APPEAL 600 OF 2003 sentence imposed upon the appellants is for the ofence under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC i.e. rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fne of Rs.500/- each, in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The sentence imposed for all these ofences were directed to run concurrently and as such it can be safely said that maximum sentence which the appellants were liable to undergo was rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fne of Rs.500/- each.

3.

In the Criminal Application No.3383 of 2019, it is the contention of the appellants that by passage of time, the dispute between the informant and the appellants has got resolved and now the informant has decided to amicably settle the dispute and does not intend that the order passed against the appellants shall be executed and the appellants shall sufer the rigorous imprisonment. In the circumstances, the aforesaid application has been fled by the appellants seeking compounding of the ofences allegedly proved against them and to acquit them all of the said ofences in pursuance of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

4.

The original informant is present before the Court and the

{6} CRI.APPEAL 600 OF 2003 accused are also present before the Court. They admit the contents of the application.

5.

Advocate Shri S.P.Kausalye caused appearance for the informant Bharat Kondiba Randive. The learned counsel has tendered across the bar the afdavit of informant Bharat wherein it is contended that the dispute between him and the appellants - accused has been resolved and he does not intend to go ahead with the matter. The Vakalatnama and the afdavit are taken on record.

6.

From the contents of the application as well as the afdavit fled by the original informant Bharat there has remained no doubt that the parties have now arrived at amicable settlement and informant is now not desiring that the sentence imposed upon the appellants shall be executed. In the circumstances, the aforesaid application has been fled for compounding of the ofences and for consequential acquittal of the appellants of the ofences for which they are convicted by the Trial Court. Though, it has been sought to be contended by Shri Sawant, learned counsel for the appellants that at the relevant time the ofence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC was

{7} CRI.APPEAL 600 OF 2003 compoundable, the position as on today would prevail. In the circumstances, request for compounding of the ofence punishable under Section 324 read with 149 of the IPC cannot be accepted. In so far as other ofences are concerned, the compounding of the said ofences is permissible and as such necessary orders can be certainly passed in relation to the said ofences.

8.

The learned counsel for the appellants, in the circumstances, has further contended that if compounding is not permissible, the fact that the dispute is now resolved as well as the fact that the reason for giving rise for prosecution occurred way back in the year 2000 i.e. nineteen years back, the factum of compromise shall be considered as mitigating circumstance and in the circumstances the appellants be released on the period of imprisonment already undergone by them for the ofences proved against them.

9.

The learned counsel for the informant does not have any objection, if such an order is passed.

10.

In view of the submissions so made, the following order is passed:-

{8} CRI.APPEAL 600 OF 2003

ORDER

I) The ofences punishable under Sections 147 and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC and the ofence punishable under Section 504 read with Section 149 of the IPC are permitted to be compounded. The conviction awarded for the aforesaid ofences by the Trial Court is therefore set aside and the accused stand acquitted of the said ofences.

II) In so far as the ofence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC is concerned, the conviction awarded by the Trial Court though is maintained, the sentence is modifed to the extent of period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants with fne of Rs.500/- each, which they have already deposited before the Trial Court. III) Criminal Application No.3383 of 2019 as well as Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2003 are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE SPT