JUDGMENT
Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.
1. The above four appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31-3-1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge IV, Nawada in Sessions Trial No. 70/17 of 1991/1989 by which they have been found guilty for offence under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been convicted and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
2. At the outset, it has been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that there were more cases between the parties and all the cases have been compromised and in this case also, a petition of compromise has been filed with signatures of all. Learned Counsel for the informant is also present in Court and supported the fact that the cases have been compromised between the parties and now there is no ill feeling between them.
3. As the conviction is under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code which is uncompoundable, the offence is not compoundable.
4. It appears that on 13-6-1984 at about 9.00 p.m. while the informant (P.W. 6 Satyadeo Singh) was at his motor pump cabin, the accused persons variously armed came. One of the accused namely, Gokaran Singh ordered other accused persons to assault the informant. Thereafter accused Chhotan Singh used his bhala by attacking on the informant. The informant in that course sustained injury and fell down. Thereafter accused Gokaran Singh sat on his chest. The informant pushed back the said accused to save his life but the other accused persons namely Sidheshwar Singh and Pankaj Kumar alias Pappu assaulted him by means of their sticks. Further allegation is that accused Gokaran Singh gave a teeth bite to the informant. The genesis of the occurrence as alleged is demand of rangdari. The occurrence was Witnessed by witnesses namely, Narendra Singh (P.W. 1), Akhilesh Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh (P.W. 2). The fardbeyan of the informant resulted in Hasua P.S. Case No. 51 of 1984 dated 14-6-1984 under sections 341, 323, 325 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was duly investigated into and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under the aforesaid Sections. The cognizance was taken. In trial, charge under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against all the four accused persons who pleaded innocence and faced trial. The defence was that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity.
4A. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as 8 witnesses. The doctor who examined the injured (informant) has been examined as P.W. 7 (Dr. Jagdeo Prasad). P.W. 5 Suresh Singh is brother of the informant. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 namely, Narendra Singh, Arjun Singh and Akhileshwar Singh, are other witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 4 Rajendra Singh is the full brother of P.W. 1.
5. The doctor has found that the injuries on the person of the informant were caused by the hard and blunt substance but according to his opinion, one of the injuries namely injury No. 9 was dangerous to life, injury No. 9 is an injury bruise on swelling of 8″ x 3″ on the middle part of neck over Adam’s apple and laterally. Injury No. 4 was also found to be of a serious nature as it was dislocation of right ring finger between 1st and 2nd phalangeal joints.
6. The witnesses have supported the fact that on the date and time of occurrence all the appellants have committed various acts which caused injuries to the informant P.W. 6. The doctor who examined the injured has found that there was injuries on the person of informant P.W. 6 and the date and time of the occurrence has tallied with the evidence of the doctor P.W. 7.
7. P.W. 6 who is injured has stated that while he was at the motor pump cabin, all the appellants came and assaulted which caused injuries to him and thereafter, he was brought to the doctor. Later on, his statement was recorded by the police in which he has stated every things. Even in his cross-examination, he has supported the fact that on the date and time, all the appellants came and committed various acts which caused him injuries. This version of the informant has already been supported by all the other witnesses also. So the prosecution has been able to prove that there was occurrence in which informant has received injuries at the hands of the appellants.
8. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the case has been compromised and no case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The case at best comes under the purview of the Sections 323 or 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. I have perused the evidence of the doctor in which it is mentioned that injury No. 9 was dangerous to life but in cross-examination, on this point the doctor has stated that there was no finger mark. Swelling and bruise on neck may be caused by wearing very hard collar. He has also stated that there was no ligature mark. In absence of either finger mark or ligature mark creates doubt on the version of the doctor regarding nature of injury. It is found that no such injury was found on the neck, definitely the case cannot come within the purview of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. No doubt, the prosecution has been able to prove that on the date and time of occurrence, there was assault. The injury report does not support that the injuries were grievous and dangerous to life.
10. In view of the evidence of the doctor and also in view of other circumstances that there was lack of intervening circumstances, it is held that the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was not attracted. So the Court below has committed error in holding the appellants guilty under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the prosecution has been able to prove that on the date and time of occurrence, there was assault and the informant received injuries but the injuries were not dangerous in nature and there was no other circumstances, the appellants are held to be guilty under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellants is modified.
11. Now, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that as both the parties have compromised the matter outside the Court and a compromise petition has been filed and also in view of the fact that this Court found the appellant guilty under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the case may be compounded and appellants may be acquitted in view of Sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which says that the composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.
12. Considering the above submissions, the offence under which the appellants was found guilty is fit to be compounded and it is accordingly compounded.
In the result, this appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted. They are also discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.