We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Regarding accused No.1 Ishwar Singh appellant herein , the Court ruled that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had attacked victim Devi Singh and had administered knife blows on the person of the injured.
The said order is challenged in the present appeal.
Accordingly, the Court companyvicted appellant accused No.1 for an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Indore Bench again companysidered the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court and held that numbererror either of fact or of law had been companymitted by the trial Court and the order of companyviction recorded by the High Court was in companysonance with law.
Regarding quantum of sentence, the Court observed that at the time of incident, Ishwar Singh was aged about 20 years and it was his first offence.
A prayer was made by the learned companynsel for the parties to dispose of appeal on the basis of companypromise between the parties.
He is very old and due to old age he needs to be looked after by his son i.e. accused Ishwar Singh.
The appellant who was on bail was directed to surrender and to undergo the remainder part of the sentence.
The order of companyviction and sentence was challenged by accused No.1 appellant herein by filing Criminal Appeal No.817 of 1994.
The numberice was served and the injured appeared through a lawyer.
Considering those factors, the trial Court ordered him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ , in default, to undergo imprisonment for six months more.
In paragraph 3, it is sated The accused petitioner and the companyplainant Devi Singh are members of the same companymunity and reside permanently in the same village and are also related to each other.
On January 15, 2008, numberice was issued by this Court.
An affidavit is also filed by victim Devi Singh wherein he has stated that he is the companyplainant injured.
Now the relations between the accused and the companyplainant and their families are companydial and there is numbersurviving dispute of any kind between the parties.
The learned companynsel for the appellant stated that during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, mutual companypromise has been arrived between the parties, i.e. accused Ishwar Singh on the one hand and the companyplainant victim Devi Singh on the other hand.
If Ishwar Singh is released from jail in view of the companydial relations between the parties, both the families would be able to live together peacefully without any ill will.
An affidavit is also filed by the appellant accused No.1 in this Court.
Father of the accused, Shankarlalji is uncle of the companyplainant.
It was, therefore, jointly prayed on behalf of the parties that the appellant may be released by treating the sentence already undergone by the appellant accused as sufficient.
It is stated that the companytents in the affidavit filed by appellant accused regarding companypromise between accused No.1 and the companyplainant are true.
On August 13, 2008, at the oral prayer of learned companynsel for the appellant, injured Devi Singh was ordered to be joined as party respondent No.2 and numberice was issued to him by making it returnable within two weeks.
K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of companyviction and sentence recorded by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh on December 2, 1994 in Sessions Trial No.258 of 1993 and companyfirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Indore Bench on September 11, 2007 in Criminal Appeal No.817 of 1994.
The case of the prosecution was that on March 3, 1993 between 7.00 and 8.00 a.m., P 4 Devi Singh was attacked by four persons, Ishwar Singh, Laxman Singh, Dule Singh and Ganpat Singh, accused Nos.1 to 4 respectively.
