Criminal Appeal No. 1205 of 2014. Case: Yogendra Yadav Vs The State of Jharkhand. Supreme Court (India)

Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 1205 of 2014
JudgesRanjana Prakash Desai and N.V. Ramana, JJ.
IssueIndian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 326, 341, 380, 448, 504; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 231(2), 311, 320, 482
Judgement DateJuly 21, 2014
CourtSupreme Court (India)


Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.

  1. The Appellants are original Accused Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in P.S. Meharma Case No. 155 of 2004 registered Under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the Indian Penal Code'). The FIR was lodged on 23/09/1994 by complainant Anil Mandal alleging that the Appellants assaulted him and his men on 22/09/2004. On the same day the Appellants also filed FIR in respect of the same incident dated 22/09/2004 alleging that complainant Anil Mandal, Baldev Mandal and Ors. assaulted them. This FIR was registered at P.S. Meharma being Case No. 156 of 2004 Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 341, 323 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

  2. In both the cases, after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. While the cases were going on before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, both the parties agreed to compromise the cases. A Panchayat was held where with the intervention of the well-wishers a compromise was arrived at. A compromise petition dated 16/11/2011 was signed by both the parties and it was filed in the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda. An application was filed Under Section 231(2) read with Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') being S.C. No. 9/05 for recalling PWs 1 to 6 for further cross-examination on the point of compromise.

  3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 16/11/2011 disposed of the said application. Learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that compromise petition was signed by the informant and the injured, their signatures were identified by the lawyers and, therefore, the compromise was genuine. He, however, observed that offences Under Sections 324, 341, 323 of the Indian Penal Code are compoundable with the permission of the court and offences Under Sections 326, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are non-compoundable. He, therefore, accepted the application in respect of offences Under Sections 323, 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The said offences were compounded and the accused were acquitted of the same. Prayer for compounding of offences Under Sections 326, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was rejected. Learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application for recalling of witnesses. He directed that the case should proceed against the accused for offences Under Sections 326, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT