Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1004 (GAU)

ANIL DAS SON OF SRI PHUKAN DAS v. STATE OF ASSAM

2017-07-31

MIR ALFAZ ALI

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. TJ Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. PS Lahkar, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-11-2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 9/2004 upholding the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner by the SDJM Jorhat in GR Case No.534/2003, whereby, the revision petitioner was convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for 3 (three) years and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. 3. The prosecution case as unfolded during the course of trial is that on the date of occurrence, a cow of the informant caused damage to the paddy seedling of the accused and therefore, the accused killed the said cow. When the injured Mangala Das, owner of the cow went to the accused to ask about the cow, the accused assaulted him with sharp weapon causing injury on his abdomen. The FIR was lodged by the elder brother of the victim, on the basis of which, police registered a case and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the revision petitioner and two others. 4. Although the FIR was lodged against three of the accused persons and charges were also framed against all the three persons named in the FIR, eventually learned Trial Court convicted the present revision petitioner under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment as indicated above. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned appellate Court also upheld the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision petition. 6. Learned senior counsel Mr. TJ Mahanta has not contested the impugned judgment of conviction on merit. However, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 4665, Mr. Mahanta submits that the injured and the revision petitioner had compromised the matter as both the parties are close neighbours and also relations and therefore, prayed for quashing the proceeding on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 4665, Mr. Mahanta submits that the injured and the revision petitioner had compromised the matter as both the parties are close neighbours and also relations and therefore, prayed for quashing the proceeding on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The learned counsel, further, submits that both the parties have filed a compromise petition before the learned Sessions Judge stating that they have compromised the case and prayed for dealing them leniently, but the learned appellate Court did not consider the said application with the observation that he had no jurisdiction to consider such prayers. 7. The Apex Court, in Narinder Singh and Others (supra) laid down the following principles as guidelines for giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties in non compoundable case by exercising inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. while exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special stature like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special stature like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding facts. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 8. I have gone through the materials and evidences on record. The evidence brought on record shows that there was no pre determination to cause the injury and the occurrence happened because of the dispute between the parties leading to killing of a cow. The offence does not carry any moral turpitude and the accused is also not a habitual criminal. According to learned counsel the accused and injured are neighbourers and they are living peacefully after having compromised the case. Therefore, the result of the compromise is expected to bring peace and harmony between the parties who are close neighbourers. Thus considering the totality of the matter and keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Narinder Singh and Others (supra), I am of the view, that to secure ends of justice, compromise arrived at between the parties deserved to be accepted. 9. Accordingly, I do hereby quash the proceeding in GR Case No. 534/2003 in the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C and set-aside the conviction and sentence of the accused. 10. The revision petition stands disposed of. 11. Send back the LCR.