Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1538 (AP)

S. KHAJA HUSSAIN v. GURRAPU JAYARAMUDU

2002-12-31

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2002
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in the crl. RC, were tried for offences under sections 148, 324 and 326 IPC as A1 to a10 in SC No. 285/97 on the file of the assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty. The Trial court convicted A1 to A10 for offences under Section 148 and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each. A1 and A5 to A10 were convicted for offence under section 324 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each. A2, A3 and A4 were convicted for offence under Section 326 and were sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. ( 2 ) THE petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No. 40/98 on the file of the III Additional district and Sessions Judge (FTC), Anantapur. Through its judgment dated 1-8-2001, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction as well as sentences ordered by the Trial Court. The petitioners filed the present Crl. RC challenging the conviction as well as sentences imposed against them. ( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the revision, the de facto complainant as well as the accused have filed Crl. MP No. 8467/ 2002, under Section 320 (2) read with section 482 Cr. PC to permit them to compound the offences for which the accused were tried and sentenced. The de facto complainant filed an affidavit in support of the Crl. MP stating that the dispute between himself and the accused has been settled due to the intervention of village elders and that he no longer intends to press the complaint. He also expressed his readiness to compound the offences, particularly, in view of the fact that the respondents have already undergone imprisonment for about 3 weeks. The parties appeared before the Court on 23-12-2002. The views of the parties, particularly, the de facto complainant, have been ascertained by this Court and he expressed his willingness to compound the offences. ( 4 ) SO far as the offences under Sections 148 and 324 IPC are concerned, section 320 Cr. PC. , provides for compounding of the same and this Court does not find it difficult to accede to the request of the parties to compound the offences. ( 4 ) SO far as the offences under Sections 148 and 324 IPC are concerned, section 320 Cr. PC. , provides for compounding of the same and this Court does not find it difficult to accede to the request of the parties to compound the offences. However, the offence under section 326 IPC does not figure in the list of offences under Section 320 Cr. PC. The question as to whether the offences which do not find a place in the list of offences under Section 320 Cr. PC can be compounded by the Courts is no longer res integra. The judgments of the Supreme court in Ram Pujan v. State of U. P ( AIR 1973 SC 2418 ) and Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1988 SC 2111 ) created a semblance of doubt as to the exhaustiveness of the list of offences under Section 320 Cr. PC. In those two cases, the Supreme Court permitted compounding of offences, which did not figure in Section 320 Cr. PC. However, on consideration of the entire matter and after reviewing the case law, the Supreme court in Ram Lal v. State of Jammu and kashmir, AIR 1999 SC 895 , held that the two decisions rendered in Ram Pujan v. State of U. P. and Mahesh Chand v. State of rajasthan, were per incuriam. The same was reiterated in Surendra Nath Mohanty v. State of Orissa, AIR 1999 SC 2181 . In unequivoca terms, it was held that under no circumstances, it was permissible for any court to compound any offence, which is not mentioned in the Table in Section 320 cr. PC. It was held that:"sub-SECTION (1) of Section 320 provides that the offences mentioned in the table provided there- under can be compounded by the persons mentioned in Column No. 3 of the said table. Further, sub-section (2) provides that, the offences mentioned in the table could be compounded by the victim with the permission of the Court. As against this, sub-section (9) specifically provides that "no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section". In view of the aforesaid legislative mandate, only the offences which are covered by table 1 or 2 as stated above can be compounded and the rest of the offences punishable under Indian penal Code could not be compounded. As against this, sub-section (9) specifically provides that "no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section". In view of the aforesaid legislative mandate, only the offences which are covered by table 1 or 2 as stated above can be compounded and the rest of the offences punishable under Indian penal Code could not be compounded. "therefore, the question of compounding the offence under Section 326 IPC, which is alleged and proved against the accused, does not arise. ( 5 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that even though it is not permissible in law to compound the offence under Section 326 IPC, the compromise that is arrived at between the de facto complainant, on one hand, and the accused, on the other, can be taken as a factor to mitigate the gravity of the charge and the Court may take that into account in considering the quantum of punishment. In ramlal v. State of J and K (supra), Surendra nath Mohanty v. State of Orissa (supra) and sattan Sahani v. State of Bihar, the Supreme court took the view that the compromise arrived at between the complainant, on one hand, and the accused, on the other, in respect of a non-compoundable offence can be taken into account to decide the quantum of punishment. ( 6 ) IN the present case, it needs to be observed that the Appellate Court held, the petitioners guilty of the offence under sections 148, 324 and 326 of IPC and the convictions were upheld by the lower appellate Court The offence under Section 324 ipc is permitted to be compounded since the same is provided under Section 320 cr. PC, The offence under Section 326 IPC is not permitted to be compounded. Once an accused is convicted for an offence, the sentence has to commensurate with the gravity of the offence. In this case, it, however, needs to be observed that from the point of view of the complainant, the offence under Sections 324 and 326 IPC do not vary substantially, in that, he received grievous injuires in both the cases. The distinguishing feature is only as to the method in which the injuries are inflicted. In such cases, what holds good for Section 324 IPC should not be substantially different for the one under section 326 IPC. The distinguishing feature is only as to the method in which the injuries are inflicted. In such cases, what holds good for Section 324 IPC should not be substantially different for the one under section 326 IPC. On account of the impermissibility of the compounding, the conviction shall continue to hold good. However, in the matter of sentence, the compromise arrived at between the parties will certainly impress the Court to take a lenient view. The contents of the affidavit revealed that the compromise was the result of certain mediations with a view to bring about peace and harmony between the complainant, on one hand, and the accused, on the other. The Courts should not hesitate to encourage the same within the framework of law. This Court, feels that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence against the accused for the offence under Section 326 ipc is modified to the one of imprisonment for the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, against A2, A3 and A4; in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the offence under Section 148 against A1 to A10 and the offence under Section 324 IPC against A1, a5 to A10 are permitted to be compounded. The conviction against A2, A3 and A4 for the offence under Section 326 IPC is confirmed. However, the sentence is modified to the one of imprisonment for the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each; in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for one month. ( 8 ) THE Crl. MP and the CM. RC, are ordered accordingly.