RAMCHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-87
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
March 22,2002
RAMACHANDRA SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
BALJINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-79] [REFERRED TO]GURSIMRAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-97] [REFERRED TO]
MALAY SAHA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2008-6-41] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMVIR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-101] [REFERRED TO]
MINTA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-100] [REFERRED TO]
BALWINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR [LAWS(P&H)-2010-9-615] [REFERRED]
GAURI SHANKAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-78] [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER RAM VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2008-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu VS. State of Orissa [LAWS(ORI)-2007-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
SAU.MAYA SANJAY KHANDARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
VEDU VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2023-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
KIRPAL SINGH VS. SURINDER SINGH JASWAL [LAWS(P&H)-2011-12-289] [REFERRED]
DIPAK CHOUDHURY VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2009-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDEEP BHANDARI VS. STATE (UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH) AND ANR [LAWS(P&H)-2010-9-417] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The accused-appellants and few others were prosecuted on charges under sections 498a and 323 of the IPC. On trial, they are found guilty and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- each for offence under section 498a and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months each for offence under section 323 I. P. C. The appellants preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal there was a compromise between the appellant and kamlesh Kumari Devi, the complainant. In view of compromise the appellants were acquitted of the offence under section 323 IPC but the conviction and sentence under section 498a IPC was maintained as it is not compoundable. Criminal revision preferred by appellants before the High Court was dismissed.
(3.)From the contents of the compromise application and affidavit dated 6.11.2001 sworn in by Kamlesh Kumari Devi it appears that complainant's marriage having been dissolved, she has remarried. Her grievance against the appellants is over. She has stated that she does not want to proceed against any of the appellants. She also admits that appellant nos. 1 and 2 are more than 70 years of age while appellant no. 3 is of 42 years and employed as safety officer in Coal india Ltd.
(2.)The accused-appellants and few others were prosecuted on charges under sections 498a and 323 of the IPC. On trial, they are found guilty and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- each for offence under section 498a and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months each for offence under section 323 I. P. C. The appellants preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal there was a compromise between the appellant and kamlesh Kumari Devi, the complainant. In view of compromise the appellants were acquitted of the offence under section 323 IPC but the conviction and sentence under section 498a IPC was maintained as it is not compoundable. Criminal revision preferred by appellants before the High Court was dismissed.
(3.)From the contents of the compromise application and affidavit dated 6.11.2001 sworn in by Kamlesh Kumari Devi it appears that complainant's marriage having been dissolved, she has remarried. Her grievance against the appellants is over. She has stated that she does not want to proceed against any of the appellants. She also admits that appellant nos. 1 and 2 are more than 70 years of age while appellant no. 3 is of 42 years and employed as safety officer in Coal india Ltd.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.