Thereafter about 10 minutes both came with iron rod and a strip of iron like sword in a planned manner, and both together made a murderous attack on Abdul Rashid.
The High Court examined the scope of Sections 482 and 320 CrPC and expressed the view that there are certain similarities and differences between companypounding and quashing a case on the basis of companypromise and hence, quashing of a criminal proceeding upon a companypromise is well within the discretionary power of the Court.
1, Kota, Rajasthan.
Admittedly, both the parties have entered into a companypromise.
The assault was more a crime against an individual than against the society at large.
Further, it was also pointed out that the injuries were caused due to sudden provocation, and were number pre meditated.
Though numbercriminal record has been produced by the Prosecution against the accused, number has any arguments about the habitual criminal, however, from the evidence came on file, this fact has been established that accused Banwari and Shambhu had been taking the goods on credit from the companyplainant Abdul Rashid, also on the day of incident, had companye to take goods on credit and due to arrears of money, he had refused to give the goods on credit.
From the side of defence, second accused was examined as DW1.
They have resolved their differences.
Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred.
On the basis of the above arguments, perused the case file.
Further, it was pointed out that they are poor labourers married and have children.
From the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exh.
After hearing the accused and the prosecution, the trial Court, on sentence, passed the following order Heard both the parties.
P1 P12 were produced.
Later, the accused persons were heard on sentence, and they stated that they are number habitual criminals and are aged 26 and 28 years, respectively.
Thus, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the appeal.
The High Court felt that since the parties had entered into a companypromise and resolved their disputes and differences, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the appeal.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the accused persons were acquitted of the offence under Sections 307 read with 34 IPC.
The doctor performed the surgery and taken out.
S. Radhakrishnan, J. Leave granted.
Then they again came back at the place of incident.
Respondents herein were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 325, 427 read with Section 34 IPC.
They were tried before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.
