- (1.)This appeal has been preferred by appellant Ramsevak being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.9.04 passed by Forth ASJ, Bhind, in S.T.No.198/01, by which appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- respectively.
(2.)According to prosecution story, on 13.5.01 at about 6 p.m. complainant Vasudev Sharma was taking his dinner, at that time, accused Ramsevak armed with Katta (country-made revolver), Suresh armed with Ballam and Girdawal armed with lathi came there. Girdawal abused him (complainant Vasudev), Suresh assaulted by Ballam which caused him bleeding injury on the right side of rib and Ramsevak fired by country-made revolver which caused bleeding injury on the right knee. The pellets also caused injuries near knee. On his cries, Satish came there. Thereafter, accused persons ran away. Hence, on the report Crime No.67/01 was registered at police Station, Phooph, Distt. Bhind under Sections 307 and 294/34 of IPC. After investigation Challan was filed against Ramsevak, Suresh and Girdawal and after trial, only Ramsevak has been convicted as mentioned above and coaccused Suresh and Girdawal have been acquitted from the charge under Section 307/34 of IPC. Hence, this appeal.
(3.)It has been argued by appellant's counsel that compromise applications were filed by complainant Vasudev and appellant Ramsevak which were registered as I.A.Nos.11734/09 and 11765/09 and parties have willfully compromised the dispute. The compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar which should be accepted. On merits, it has been argued that injured Vasudev (PW-2) sustained pellet injuries as per the medical report Ex.P/1 in which the nature of the injuries was not given. As per xray report (Ex.P/2), no fracture was detected. The nature of the injuries was not given by the doctor. There is no evidence in this respect, hence, the nature of the injuries will be simple in nature, therefore, offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out and case will fall under Section 324 of IPC for which compromise should be accepted. As regards offence under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, it has been argued that Katta by which shot was fired, has not been seized during the investigation. The appellant has already suffered the jail sentence of four months and twelve days. Hence, considering the fact of compromise, a lenient view be adopted because this is seven years old appeal and the age of the appellant is now near about 65 years and no fruitful purpose will be served in sentencing him. Hence, the appeal should be allowed.