IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL A No. 301 of 2001()
1. PURUSHOTHAMAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PURUSHAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES
Dated :15/03/2007
O R D E R
J.M.JAMES, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.A. No.301 of 2001 (A)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The first respondent herein was the second accused
in C.C.No.67/1997 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First
Class Court-II, Cherthala. There were all together six accused.
After appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution
which consists of five witnesses and three documents, together
with DW.1, a defence witness, the lower court found all the
accused, except the second accused, guilty, and, therefore,
convicted and sentenced them for various punishments under
Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section
34 I.P.C. The second accused was acquitted. The said acquittal
is under challenge through this appeal on obtaining leave.
2. When the appeal came up for consideration, it
was brought to my notice that the convicted accused had
challenged the same before the Additional Sessions Court,
Alappuzha, through Crl.A.No.15/2000. During the pendency of
the appeal, the de facto complainant, at whose instance a private
complaint was filed against all the accused, including the first
Crl.A.No.301/2001 (A)
-: 2 :-
respondent herein and the appellants who were convicted, filed
a compounding petition, praying for sanction under Section 320
(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per the order dated
02/07/2001, the Additional Sessions Court, Alappuzha, granted
sanction and, therefore, the matter between the convicted
accused-appellants and the de facto complainant were
compounded. The appellants therein were acquitted under
Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.
3. In the compounding application it was averred
that with the intervention of the mediators and also with the
negotiations between the de facto complainant and the other
persons, they have compromised the matter among themselves.
It is true that the first respondent, the second accused, in the
case is not a signatory to the compounding application. But as
the parties have already compounded, I find no reason to
interfere with the acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate of
the First Class Court-II, Cherthala, in C.C.No.67/1997.
Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal and the appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
(J.M.JAMES)
Judge
ms
Crl.A.No.301/2001 (A)
-: 3 :-
J.M.JAMES, J.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Crl.A No. 301 of 2001 (A)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
J U D G M E N T
15th March, 2007