- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bhim Singh And Others v. State Of U.P .
Factual and Procedural Background
Ram Singh, Bhim Singh, and Krishna Murari were tried before the Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur. Bhim Singh was convicted under Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Ram Singh and Krishna Murari were convicted under Section 394 IPC and each sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment.
On appeal, the Allahabad High Court altered the convictions: Bhim Singh’s conviction was reduced to an offence under Section 324 IPC with a sentence of 18 months’ rigorous imprisonment, while Ram Singh and Krishna Murari were convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and each sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court found that on September 8, 1967, Bhim Singh, at the instigation of the other two appellants, caused hurt to Ram Sarup on the road behind Jaipuria House in Kanpur.
The appellants then approached this Court by special leave. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed stating that the appellants had compounded the offence with the injured person, Ram Sarup, supported by his affidavit asserting an amicable settlement made of his own free will and without extraneous pressure.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in view of the parties’ amicable settlement and the injured person’s affidavit, permission should be granted to compound the offence under Section 324 IPC, which is compoundable with the permission of the Court, and the consequential effect on the appellants’ convictions and sentences.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court’s analysis was concise and focused on the legal permissibility and propriety of compounding the offence:
- The Court noted that the offence under Section 324 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court.
- An application to compound was placed before the Court, accompanied by an affidavit from the injured person, Ram Sarup, affirming that the settlement was amicable and entered into of his own free will and without any external pressure.
- Given the compoundable nature of the offence and the stated amicable settlement, the Court considered it “in the fitness of things” to permit compounding.
- Upon granting permission to compound, the Court set aside the convictions of all appellants and acquitted them.
In essence, the decision turned on the statutory allowance for compounding the specific offence and the voluntariness of the settlement, rather than a reassessment of the underlying facts or evidence.
Holding and Implications
PERMISSION TO COMPOUND GRANTED; CONVICTIONS SET ASIDE; APPELLANTS ACQUITTED.
Implications:
- The immediate effect is that all three appellants are acquitted in consequence of the Court’s permission to compound the offence under Section 324 IPC.
- The decision resolves the case based on the parties’ settlement; it does not purport to establish any broader legal precedent beyond the application of the compounding provision to the facts presented.
H.R Khanna, J.— Ram Singh, Bhim Singh and Krishna Murari were tried in the Court of Civil and Sessions Judge Kanpur. Bhim Singh was convicted under Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, while the other two appellants were convicted under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. On appeal the Allahabad High Court altered the conviction of Bhim Singh to that under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months. The conviction of Ram Singh and Krishna Murari was altered to that under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. It was held by the High Court that on September 8, 1967 Bhim Singh appellant at the instigation of the two other appellants had caused hurt to Ram Sarup on the road behind Jaipuria House in Kanpur. The appellants thereafter came up in appeal to this Court by special leave.
2. An application was also filed on behalf of the appellants that they had compounded the offence with Ram Sarup injured person. An affidavit of Ram Sarup was also filed and in that affidavit Ram Sarup stated that he had amicably settled the matter with the appellants of his own free will and without any extraneous pressure.
3. The offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable with the permission of the Court. As it is stated that the parties have amicably settled matter, it would, in our opinion, be in the fitness of things if permission to compound the offence is granted. We accordingly grant the necessary permission, set aside the conviction of the appellants and acquit them.
Alert