CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2008 › Gampa Govindu v. State of A.P Tr.public Prosecutor

Gampa Govindu v. State of A.P Tr.public Prosecutor

Supreme Court of India · 21 April 2008

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
21 April 2008
Case no.
Crl.A. No. 687 of 2008
Length
1 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 687 of 2008
PETITIONER:
Gampa Govindu
RESPONDENT:
State of Andhra Pradesh Thr. Public Prosecutor
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/04/2008
BENCH:
B.N. AGRAWAL & G.S. SINGHVI

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT

O R D E R CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.687 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6418 of 2006)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

The Trial Court convicted the sole appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C."] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rupees one thousand; in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. On appeal being preferred, the Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. When the matter was taken to the High Court in revision, the conviction and sentence under Section 326 I.P.C. have been set aside and the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Before this Court, a joint petition of compromise has been filed wherein it has been stated that the parties have settled their disputes; as such, they be permitted to compound the offence. In our view, the prayer is just and must be granted. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant are set aside, in view of the compounding.

Ask CaseMinister about Gampa Govindu v. State of A.P Tr.public Prosecutor

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp