Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1746 (HP)

Sanjay Kumar v. State Of H. P.

2015-11-30

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J (Oral) The instant Revision petition is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 2008, whereby it reversed the findings of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. II, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh During the pendency of the instant revision petition before this Court, the learned counsel for the revisionists has filed an application seeking leave of the Court for the compounding of the offences constituted in the charge framed against them. Even in the face of the pendency of the revision petition before this Court directed against the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi against the accused/revisionists, the concert or the endeavour on the part of the revisionists to seek leave of the Court to compound the offences can yet succeed in the event of the complainant disclosing before this Court of events supervening the rendition of findings of conviction by the Appellate Court against the accused/revisionists standing occurred and theirs personificatory of the accused/revisionists besides the complainant having arrived at a compromise for facilitating amity and harmony inter-se them. The application preferred before this Court by the petitioners/revisionists seeking leave of this Court for the compounding of the offences for which they stood convicted and sentenced by the Appellate Court even when it stands instituted during the pendency of the instant Revision Petition directed against the findings of conviction recorded by the Appellate Court is rendered maintainable in view of judgment of the Honble Apex Court reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 titled as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, relevant paragraph whereof stands extracted hereinafter and its empowering this Court even during the pendency of a Revision Petition directed against recording of findings of conviction against the accused by the Appellate Court to proceed to record an order compounding the offence for which accused/revisionists stood charged, convicted and sentenced by the Appellate Court, especially in the face of a palpable emanation in a compromise deed arrived at inter-se the revisionists and the complainant of theirs henceforth aspiring to live in peace and amity especially besides in consonance thereto the complainant has recorded her statement on oath before this Court asking this Court to accept the revision petition and for its acquitting the accused/revisionists. Reinforcingly, proposals manifested in the compromise necessitate reverence especially when in consonance therewith the complainant has, in her statement recorded on oath duly reduced into writing and signatured by her, conveyed therein to this Court of a compromise deed comprised in Annexure A-1 having stood volitionally executed by her with the accused/revisionists besides hers also articulating therein qua the revision petition of the revisionists/accused being accepted by this Court and of all the accused/revisionists being acquitted. "51. Section 320 of the Code articulates public policy with regard to the compounding of offences. It catalogues the offences punishable under IPC which may be compounded by the parties without permission of the Court and the composition of certain offences with the permission of the Court. The offences punishable under the Special statutes are not covered by Section 320. When an offence is compoundable under Section 320, abatement of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence or where the accused is liable under section 34 or 149 IPC can also be compounded in the same manner. A person who is under 18 years of age or is an idiot or a lunatic is not competent to contract compounding of offence but the same can be done on his behalf with the permission of the Court. If a person is otherwise competent to compound an offence is dead, his legal representatives may also compound the offence with the permission of the Court. Where the accused has been committed for trial or he has been convicted and the appeal is pending, composition can only be done with the leave of the court to which he has been committed or with the leave of the appeal court, as the case may be. The Revisional Court is also competent to allow any person to compound any offence who is competent to compound. The consequence of the composition of an offence is acquittal of the accused. Sub section (9) of Section 320 mandates that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section. Obviously, in view thereof the composition of an offence has to be in accord with section 320 and in no other manner." 2. Consequently, in view of above the revision petition is accepted and the accused are acquitted of the offences charged. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.