JUDGMENT
P.C. Agrawal, J.
1. Shyam Babu (A-1) is convicted under Sections 333 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘Code’ for short) and other appellants are convicted under Sections 333/34 and 325/34 of the Code. They have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo R.I. for one month on each count.
2. As per prosecution Brijmohan (P.W. 2) is posted as E.D.N.C. in Post Office, Ramnagar. He carries the post bag from post office to load the same to bus and distributes the letters and other postal articles. On dispute of land, some civil litigation was pending between him and the appellants in which he was successful in the Court of Civil Judge but on appeal, appellants were successful. Anyhow, on 16-11-90, at about 7 A.M. when Brijmohan (P.W. 2) was going by bicycle with a post bag to Bhaura Chauraha, he was surrounded by all the appellants, was abused and belabored. Shyam Babu (A-1) was armed with Farsiy while other appellants were armed with lathis. On shouts of Brijmohan (PAY. 2) his father, Kaluram rushed to the spot but he Loo was beaten badly. Post bag and some letters were torn. Gangaram (P.W. 3), Rambharosa (P.W. 4) and Dayaram rushed to the spot and pacified. Brijmohan (P.W. 2) reported the matter to Police Station, Fatchgarh situalc at a distance of 12 kms. from the spot at 5.30 P.M. vide Ex. P-3. Brijmohan (P.W. 2) was medically examined by Dr. H.H.N. Garg (P.W. 1) who noted in all 10 injuries on different parts of body. There were two lacerated wounds and rest contusions. His father Kaluram had seven contusions on the body. On X-ray photographs being taken, R.K. Jain (P.W. 7), radiologist found fractures of left ulna and right fibula on Brijmohan (P.W. 2) and fractures of left radius and index finger of Kaluram. X-ray plates relating to Kaluram arc there on record though X-ray plates pertaining to Brijmohan (P.W. 2) arc not there on record, yet, X-ray reports are there. The post bag with cash bag, torn papers of account and envelopes were seized from Brijmohan (P.W. 2) by Police of Fatchgarh vide Ex. P-4. Certificate about employment of Brijmohan (P.W. 2) in Post Office, Ramnagar was taken from R.P. Shrivastava (P.W. 5), Inspector, Post Office. Thus, after due investigation charge-sheet under Sections 353, 341, 294, 186, 426 and 333 was filed against the appellants.
3. Appellants pleaded not guilty. They claim that they have been falsely implicated.
4. The Trial Court relying upon prosecution evidence has found
the appellants guilty and sentenced them as aforesaid.
5. Prosecution story was fully supported by Brijmohan (P.W. 2), injured complainant, Gangaram (P.W. 3) and Rambharosa (P.W. 4). Their statements have been consistent, natural and probable. FIR (Ex. P-3) is lodged by Brijmohan (P.W. 2) on the same date at P.S. Fatehgarh, situate at a distance of 12 kms. from the spot which takes the case of prosecution very far. Dr. H.H.N. Garg (P.W. 1) has medically examined Brijmohan (P.W. 2) and his father Kaluram on 17-11-90 and has noted several injuries on their persons which could be caused by hard and blunt objects. Obviously, these injuries were neither self inflicted nor artificial. Dr. R.K. Jain (P.W. 7), radiologist has noted fractures on persons of both Brijmohan (P.W. 2) and his father Kaluram. It is noteworthy, that Kaluram had died before his statement could be recorded in Trial Court and thus he was not available for his examination. The appellants have merely denied the offence and claim that they have been falsely implicated. Such defence is merely evasive and does not rebut the case of prosecution. In view of Asa Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1973 SC 512) and State of Punjab v. Juvraj Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 234], conviction of the appellants was not unfounded.
6. However, Brijmohan (P.W. 2) has applied for permission to compound under Section 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has entered into a compromise also with the appellants. He could compromise on behalf of his late father Kaluram, being his legal representative. If such compromise is in the interest of better future relations of the parties, it is just and proper to allow Brijmohan (P.W. 2) to compound the compoundable case under Section 325 of the Code. Ramphal v. State of M.P. [2000(4) M.P.H.T 90 = (2000) 9 SCC 61], Parmeshwari v. Vennila [(2000) 10 SCC 348] are the authorities whereby such compromise could be allowed. Obviously, more than 12 years have elapsed since after the occurrence. Hence, permission to compound the compoundable offence is granted to Brijmohan (P.W. 2) and compoundable offence under Section 325 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are allowed to be compounded and in view of compromise, appellants are acquitted under Sections 325/34 of the Code.
7. However, offence under Section 333 or 333/34 is non-compoundable. In view of Ramlal v. State of J& K [(1999) 2 SCC 213] and Surendra Nath Mohanti v. State of Orissa [(1999) 5 SCC 238], compounding of non-compoundable offences is not permissible. Anyhow, the fact of composition can be taken into consideration while deciding the question of sentence. About 12 years have elapsed since after the occurrence. Appellants have already undergone detention of 41 days each. In view of these factors, jail sentences awarded to the appellants is reduced to that already undergone. They would pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of which they shall undergo R.I. for 6 months.
8. Thus, appeal allowed in part. Conviction under Sections 333 and
333/34 is maintained. Sentences modified. Conviction under Sections 325/34
is set aside. This sentence is substituted for sentence awarded by the Trial
Court.