Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 527 (GAU)

Deep Nath v. State of Assam

2009-08-06

P.K.MUSAHARY

body2009
JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.8.2002 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 280(K) of 2000, convicting the accused-Appellant under Section 307, IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for another one month. 2. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant and also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam. 3. Mr. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that PW11, Dr. Bijit Gogoi and PW10, Dr. Deepak Kr. Sarmah, who were on duty in the outdoor cell of the causality department of the Guwahati Medical College hospital on 6.1.2000 on being produced by the police, in connection with Noonmati P.S. Case No. 6 of 2000, medically examined the victim and they found that he sustained simple injury in the left fore arm measuring 4 cm x 1.5 cm x 1 cm, one linear cut injury on the left side of face by a sharp cutting weapon. The nature of injury as found by the doctors, being not serious, it would not attract the offence under Section 307, IPC. According to Mr. Mahanta, the injury being found and proved as of simple nature, the accused-Appellant may be punishable under Section324, IPC and not under Section 307, IPC. 4. Mr. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the informant, injured person and the accused-Appellant have come to a negotiated settlement outside the court. In this regard, an application being Criminal Misc. Case No. 452 of 2009 has been filed by the accused-Appellant by annexing an affidavit in original sworn by the victim stating that the accused-Appellant and the informant had compromised the matter and also they are maintaining good relation each other and he does not pursue with the case any more and accordingly, he wants to drop the pending criminal preceding. 5. In this regard, Mr. Mahanta, relies on Badrilal v. State of M.P., (2005) 7 SCC 55 wherein, it is held that when a joint petition of compromise is filed in a non-compundable offence, i.e., offence under Section 307, IPC, compromise cannot be recorded in such a case. It would be apposite to quote para 4 of the aforesaid judgment below: 4. Mahanta, relies on Badrilal v. State of M.P., (2005) 7 SCC 55 wherein, it is held that when a joint petition of compromise is filed in a non-compundable offence, i.e., offence under Section 307, IPC, compromise cannot be recorded in such a case. It would be apposite to quote para 4 of the aforesaid judgment below: 4. A joint petition of compromise has been filed on behalf of the parties in which prayer has been made for recording the compromise. The offence under Section 307, IPC is not a compoundable one, therefore, compromise cannot be recorded, but at the same time, it is well settled that while awarding sentence the effect of compromise can be taken into consideration. It has been stated that the Appellant has remained in custody for a period of about 14 months and there is no allegation that he assaulted the deceased. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that ends of justice should be met in case of sentence of imprisonment awarded against the Appellant by the trial court and reduced by the High Court is further reduced to the period already undergone. 6. As discussed above, the present case is not covered under Section 307, IPC inasmuch as, as per the evidence of the medical officers, P Ws 10 and 11, the informant received only simple injury and under such circumstances, the accused-Appellant could be convicted only under Section 324, IPC for which, the sentence prescribed is 3 years or fine or both Moreover, it has been sufficiently shown by the accused-Appellant that the matter has been settled amicably between them and they are maintaining good relations and the informant is not desirous to pursue the matter further. Under such facts and circumstances, in my considered view, the ends of justice would be served if the present appeal is dropped converting the conviction to one under Section 324, IPC and also reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused-Appellant 7. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 307, IPC is converted to Section 324, IPC. Consequently, the sentence is also reduced to the period already undergone by the accused-Appellant. Appeal stands partly allowed as indicated above. The bail bond shall stand discharged. 8. Send down the LCRs to the court below forthwith.