- (1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. Amar Saran assisted by Sri S. K. Dubey, learned Counsel for the revisionists and Mr. Patanj ali Misra, learned A. G. A. assisted by Mr. Bipin Bihari appearing for the complainant injured persons.
(2.) THERE are two arguments of Mr. Saran noted below: (A) That the lower Court record could not be received because of it being weeded out as per report received from the lower Court noted in the order-sheet of the revision petition. So the revisionists should be acquitted following the view taken by this Court while deciding Criminal Revision No. 1218 of 1984 vide judgment dated 21-11-1997. (B) That there is a joint compromise peti tion which has been verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia. The conviction has been recorded under Section 307, I. P. C. but the revisionists deserve the benefit of compromise as the offence can at best go under Section 324, I. P. C. which is a compoundable offence with permission of the Court. For this purpose. Mr. Saran drew the attention of the Court about injury to Keshav as well as Phakir Chandra. He has argued that the injuries are of simple nature and none of the injuries is on the vital part of the body and there is no opinion expressed that any of the injuries was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In such circumstan ces the allegation should not constitute the offence punishable under Section 307, I. P. C. rather they should go under Section 324, I. P. C. The learned Counsel appearing for the complainant injured and learned A. G. A. fairly conceded that since there has been a compromise, let good relation ship prevail between the parties and so the benefit of compromise should be al lowed. So far as the first argument of Mr. Saran is concerned this Court is not in agreement with the view expressed in judgment of criminal revision No. 1218 of 1984 noted above. There is no law Laid down in this judgment. The provision of Cr. P. C. in the Chapter of revision, do not make mandatory provision for lower Court record. In this legal background the non-availability of lower Court record can't be fatal for the prosecution while deciding the revision petition. So the first point is decided against the revisionists. This Court now takes the 2nd argument of Mr. Saran who lays much stress on the compromise petition brought on record which has been verified by the Chief Judi cial Magistrate. The conviction has been recorded under Section 307, I. P. C. which is not compoundable. The incident is al leged to have taken place in 1982, that is, more than 16 years old. The parties have compromised the dispute and it has been noted in the compromise that the have forgotten the bad blood prevailed among themselves. The injuries described in the impugned judgment dated 30-6-1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in Session No. 159 of 1984 supports the argument of Mr. Saran that all the injuries caused by the fire-arm, are of simple nature and there is no injuries to give any ingredient that they were likely to cause the death of injured persons. Con sidering this nature of the injury the of fence comes under Section 324, I. P. C. which can be compromised by the parties. Since the compromise has been verified by the C. J. M. that all the injured and the accused persons came before him and put their signatures discloses that they have compromised the dispute, this Court think it proper in the interest of justice to grant permission to compromise.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY the parties are granted permission to compromise and the compromise petition verified by the C. J. M. on 21-1-1997 is accepted. The revisionists/accused persons are acquitted under the provisions of Section 320 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They are discharged from liability of the bail bond. Revision allowed. .;