1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 968 of 2011 1 - Santu Yadav, son of Tribhuvan Yadav, aged about 30 years, resident of village Dhangava, Chouki Malhar, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Santosh Kumar, son of Nohar lal Yadav, aged about 40 years, resident of village Dhangava, Chouki Malhar, P.S.Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Atrocity, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For the appellants : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For the State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer For the complainant : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 20/02/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2011 passed A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.39/2009 arising out of committal order dated 25.07.2009 in Criminal Case No.631/2009 whereby the appellants have been convicted u/s 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, they have been further directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 months. 2. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has acquitted the other accused Shivlal, Lal Yadav, Lakhan, Pappu @ Lankeshwar, Lalu @ Omprakash Yadav and Chunnu @ Suresh Kumar u/ss 147, 341, 506, 325 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Whereas the learned trial Court convicted the present appellants Santu Yadav and Santosh Kumar U/s 325 of IPC while acquitting them u/ss 147, 341, 506 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 02.08.2008 at about 7.30 pm., the Panchayat Inspector came to the village to inspect the Panchayat and the complainant Rajesh Tandon complained against the Panchayat members that they were doing false work. After the inspection, the applicant Rajesh was returning with one of his companions on motorcycle. When he reached near the house of accused Santu Yadav at about 7.30 p.m., all the accused, who were standing there with sticks, intercepted the complainant and abused him in filthy language like “Madorchod”, and further they hurled abuses in the name of complainant’s mother and threatened to kill him by saying that he was opposing the proceedings of the Panchayat and assaulted 3 him, due to which, the complainant suffered injuries on his right hand, left thigh and back. During the incident, his gold ring also fell down. The complainant lodged the report in Police Chowki Malhar and thereafter, his medical examination and X-ray examination was done wherein the complainant was found to have a bone fracture in his right hand. During investigation, the complainant’s caste certificate was recovered. The spot map of incident was prepared by the investigation officer. The sticks used in offence were recovered from the present appellants Santosh Yadav and Santu Yadav. During investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed before the JMFC Bilaspur from where the matter was committed to the Sessions Court. 4. The prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents to prove the guilt of accused. The accused were examined u/s 313 CrPC wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication. The learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence and material on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. The appellants and complainant are present before this Court through their respective counsels and submit that at this stage, a joint application (I.A.No.1 of 2025) was filed by the appellants and complainant under Section 359 read with Section 528 of Cr.P.C., seeking permission to the parties to compound the offence and further to dispose of the appeal by acquitting the appellants. It is further stated that the appellants and complainant of this case are well known to each 4 other and they are residing in the same village. They have also stated that the appellants party and complainant party are well acquainted with each other and in order to maintain cordial relations between the them and further to ensure peace and tranquility in the village, they have arrived at a compromise and resolved the dispute outside the court of their own will without any fear and force. The said compromise application is duly supported by the affidavit of both the accused/ appellants as also the complainant respectively. A copy of the Aadhar Card of complainant is annexed herewith. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the complainant has amicably settled his dispute with the appellants, and therefore, wants to acquit the appellants on the basis of compromise arrived between them. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and the fact that the appellant and complainant have amicably resolved the dispute pursuant to the compromise and further the complainant wants acquittal of the appellants as both the parties want to maintain cordial relations and to ensure peace and tranquility in the village, this Court is inclined to allow this compromise application and dispose of the appeal in terms of the compromise application. 8. Accordingly, compromise application (I.A.No. 1/2025) is allowed. Both the appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 325 of the IPC. The fine amount, if already, deposited shall be returned to them. The appellants are on bail. They are not required to surrender again. However, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of 5 six months in terms of provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise application. 10. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao