Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 285 (MP)

ANIL JAIN v. STATE OF M. P.

2012-03-12

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2012
JUDGMENT : 1. Since both the aforesaid cases arise out of the common impugned judgment, this judgment/order shall govern the disposal of both the cases. 2. In Criminal Appeal No. 2036/1998 appellant has challenged the judgment dated 27th August, 1998, passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 909/1994, convicting him under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 2000/-. 3. In M.Cr.C. No. 6922/2009, an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicant has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings against him including the impugned judgment of conviction on the ground that the complaint/injured Raju has compounded the offence with him by filing application under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. In short, the prosecution case is that on 7-6-1991, at about 9.00 pm, complainant Raju along with his friend Ganesh had gone to village Kajarwara. While they were watching a marriage procession near a school, accused persons viz. Sukhchain and his son Anil reached there and suddenly attacked him with a sword and a Bakka. Sukhchain caused injuries to him by sword whereas Anil assaulted him with Bakka. On his shouting, they ran away. He was taken to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur, where Police Cantt. recorded Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/8) on his information at about 10.15 pm. Initially a case under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code was registered, but, subsequently, it was converted into under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. On the requisition by police, Dr. Chandra Bhushan Arora (PW-6), Assistant Surgeon, Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur, examined the injuries of Raju. He found following injuries on his body : "(1) Incised wound on left elbow. Bone deep. (2) Incised wound on right thigh at middle anterior aspect 3" x ½". (3) Incised wound on left occipito parietal area. (4) Incised wound on left gluteal area ½" x ½" muscle deep. Profuse bleeding. (5) Incised wound on right shoulder 1½" x ½". (6) Incised wound on left thumb ½" x ½". (7) Contusion on left forearm. (8) Contusion on left thigh." In the opinion of doctor all the injuries were caused by hard and sharp object. Patient was referred to Medical College for knowing the nature of injuries from surgical specialist. Profuse bleeding. (5) Incised wound on right shoulder 1½" x ½". (6) Incised wound on left thumb ½" x ½". (7) Contusion on left forearm. (8) Contusion on left thigh." In the opinion of doctor all the injuries were caused by hard and sharp object. Patient was referred to Medical College for knowing the nature of injuries from surgical specialist. The MLC report of injured is Ex.P/9-A. On a query from the surgical expert, a report Ex.P/13 was produced, which indicated that the injuries found on the body of injured were dangerous to life. 6. After investigation, charge-sheet, against both the accused persons, was filed under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Both the accused persons pleaded false implication. 8. Prosecution, to substantiate its case, examined six witnesses. 9. Learned trial judge relying mainly on the evidence of Raju (PW-2) and Rajesh (PW-3) and finding it supported by the evidence of Dr. Chandra Bhushan Arora (PW-6) held the accused persons guilty of the charge under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them accordingly. 10. Both the accused persons filed appeal before this Court challenging their conviction and sentence. Accused Sukhchain, however, expired during the pendency of appeal. As such, his appeal stood abated. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the finding of conviction of accused under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the trial court. He, however, submitted that since injured Raju (PW-2) had compounded the offence with appellant, the criminal proceedings of the case including the impugned judgment of conviction deserved to be quashed and/or at least his sentence may be reduced to the period of sentence already served out by him. From the record, learned counsel pointed out that appellant has remained in custody for a period of about 5 months. Learned counsel placed reliance on the cases of B. S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, AIR 2003 SC 1386 and Ishwar Singh vs. State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC 675 . From the record, learned counsel pointed out that appellant has remained in custody for a period of about 5 months. Learned counsel placed reliance on the cases of B. S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, AIR 2003 SC 1386 and Ishwar Singh vs. State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC 675 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that merely on the basis of a compromise the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which is not compoundable under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the criminal proceedings or the conviction of appellant/accused under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be quashed. 12. I have perused the evidence of Raju (PW-2). He categorically stated that when he and Ganesh were watching marriage procession, appellant and co-accused Sukhchain suddenly attacked him with sword and Bakka, as a result of which he suffered injuries and fell down. Accused persons ran away. He was shifted to Victoria Hospital where police recorded his report (Ex.P/8). This witness was cross-examined, but he remained firm. His evidence stood corroborated from the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/8) lodged by him immediately after the occurrence and also from the evidence of Rajesh (PW-3), who reached at the spot immediately after the occurrence. According to Rajesh (PW-3), he saw Anil and Sukhchain assaulting Raju with sword and Khukhri. As soon as he heard the cries of Raju, he reached at the spot then accused persons ran away. The evidence of Raju further finds corroboration from the evidence of Dr. Chandra Bhushan Arora (PW-6), who found multiple incised injuries on his body caused by sharp and hard object. According to him, a report (Ex.P/13) of Surgical Specialist Dr. Divendra Das was also received, which indicated that injuries found on the body of Raju were dangerous to his life. 13. On appraisal of the above evidence, I am satisfied that it was amply established that appellant and co-accused Sukhchain assaulted Raju with the intention of causing his death. Learned trial judge committed no error in holding the appellant guilty of the charge under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicting him accordingly. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant next submitted that in view of the compromise between injured/complainant Raju (PW-2) and appellant/applicant Anil, the conviction of the appellant/applicant deserved to be quashed. 15. Learned trial judge committed no error in holding the appellant guilty of the charge under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicting him accordingly. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant next submitted that in view of the compromise between injured/complainant Raju (PW-2) and appellant/applicant Anil, the conviction of the appellant/applicant deserved to be quashed. 15. In the application under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. (M.Cr.C. No. 6922/2009), applicant filed a composition deed (Annexure A-4), which recorded a compromise between injured Raju and applicant Anil Kumar. It was expressed by the complainant that the father of applicant had died on 11-10-2006. In fact, the injuries to him were caused by him only and not by applicant Anil Kumar. After a long lapse of time, relations between him and Anil Kumar had become cordial and, therefore, he did not wish that Anil Kumar be punished. He requested that the conviction of Anil Kumar be quashed. On the order of this Court, the fact of this compromise was verified by the Principal Registrar (Judicial) on 6-11-2009. Before the Principal Registrar, complainant admitted the fact of compromise and expressed that he had voluntarily compromised the matter. 16. In case of B.S. Joshi (supra), the Apex Court observed :- "for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary. Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power." After going through the complete text of the above judgment, it seems that this observation has been made by the Apex Court keeping in view the genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes between the parties. The Apex Court therefore further observed :- "The special features in such matrimonial matter are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes................... The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code." For the above benevolent purpose, it seems, the Apex Court held that High Court in exercise of its inherent powers may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaints and section 320 of the Code would not limit or affect its powers under section 482 of the Code. 17. From the above observations and legal proposition of the Apex Court, it is obvious that the real object and duty of the Court should be to encourage the genuine settlement of trivial, social or matrimonial disputes. The observations made by the Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi (supra) cannot be mis-utilized for quashing the criminal proceedings or conviction of an unscrupulous accused person of the charge like section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been made a non-compoundable offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of a compromise. As such, the prayer made by the appellant/applicant for quashing of his conviction on the basis of compromise cannot be accepted. 18. In case of Ishwar Singh (supra), the Apex Court, after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the compromise between the parties, reduced the sentence of accused, who was convicted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to the period already undergone by him. 19. It is settled that the fact of compromise, in case of a non-compoundable offence, can be taken on record and considered in awarding sentence to accused. In the instant case, the incident had occurred in the year 1991. Since then 20 years have elapsed. At the time of occurrence, appellant was a young boy of about 19 years of age. He has already remained in jail for a period of about 5 months. The compromise between him and the injured has been verified. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. Accordingly : (A) Misc. He has already remained in jail for a period of about 5 months. The compromise between him and the injured has been verified. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. Accordingly : (A) Misc. Criminal Case No. 6922/2009 is partly allowed. The fact of compromise between applicant Anil Kumar and non-applicant No. 2 Raju is taken on record. (B) Criminal Appeal No. 2036/1998 is also partly allowed. The conviction of appellant Anil Kumar under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed. However, his sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years is reduced to the period sentence already undertone by him. Sentence of fine is affirmed. 20. A copy of this judgment be kept in the record of M.Cr.C. No. 6922/2009.