Ramji Lal And Another v. State Of Haryana ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

Original Accused 2 and 3 were tried and convicted for multiple offences arising out of the same incident: (i) Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (causing grievous hurt with common intention) and sentenced to 1½ years’ rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs 200, in default three months’ RI; (ii) Section 324/34 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon with common intention) with a sentence of one year’s RI; and (iii) Section 323/34 IPC (voluntarily causing simple hurt with common intention) with a sentence of six months’ RI. All substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Original Accused 1 was given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and required to execute a bond of good behaviour for two years, a period that has already expired.

The convicted Accused 2 and 3 sought special leave to appeal. On the date of hearing, counsel for both sides produced an affidavit dated 1 November 1982 from the injured complainant, Nasib Singh, stating that he had voluntarily entered into a composition (compromise) with the accused to restore neighbourly relations and declined any monetary compensation. After initial reservations, the Court was satisfied of the compromise’s genuineness.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Court should grant permission for a post-conviction composition in respect of offences that are legally compoundable.

Whether the affidavit of the injured complainant expressing voluntary composition, without accepting compensation, could be accepted as genuine and sufficient to set aside the conviction and sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments

Produced the complainant’s affidavit asserting a voluntary compromise and sought the Court’s permission to compound the offences.

Offered Rs 2,000 as compensation to reinforce the bona fides of the compromise.

Injured Complainant’s Position

Through counsel, confirmed instructions not to accept any monetary compensation, emphasizing that the compromise was motivated solely by the desire to restore friendly relations.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court initially expressed “considerable hesitation” because the complainant had suffered 19 injuries, two of them grievous, yet declined compensation. After discussion with counsel for both sides, the Court was assured there was “nothing hanky-panky” about the compromise.

Key steps in the analysis:

Confirmed that all offences (Sections 325/34, 324/34, 323/34 IPC) are legally compoundable with the Court’s permission.

Evaluated the sincerity of the compromise, noting the “chastened attitude” of the accused and the “commendable attitude” of the complainant aimed at social harmony.

Concluded that permitting the composition would best serve restorative justice and community harmony.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was allowed; the convictions and sentences of Accused 2 and 3 were set aside. If the appellants were on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled; if in custody, they are to be released forthwith.

Implications: The decision terminates criminal liability for the appellants based on a lawful composition. The ruling affects only the parties to this case and does not announce a new legal precedent beyond reaffirming that courts may permit composition for compoundable offences even after conviction when satisfied of its genuineness.

Ramji Lal And Another v. State Of Haryana .

Order

1. Special leave is granted.

2. Appellant original Accused 2 and 3 were convicted for an offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC and each of them was sentenced to RI for 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs 200 in default to undergo RI for three months. Both of them were also convicted for an offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and each of them is sentenced to suffer RI for one year. Both of them are further convicted for an offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and each of them is sentenced to suffer RI for six months. Substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently. Original Accused 1 was given the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act and he was ordered to execute a bond for a period of two years to be of good behaviour. That period has long since expired.

3. When the special leave was taken up for hearing today, Dr Chauhan, appeared for the appellants and Mr B.B Singh, learned counsel appeared for the original injured complainant. Both drew our attention to an affidavit dated November 1, 1982 filed by the original injured complainant, Nasib Singh, in which he has stated that he has entered into composition and that has been done voluntarily and that even though he was offered compensation he declined to accept the same. He stated that the composition was brought about by the intervention of friends and well-wishers to restore friendly and good neighbourly relations with the accused.

4. We had considerable hesitation in accepting the genuineness of this composition. More so because the approach of the injured, who has suffered as many as 19 injuries, two of which are certified as grievous, to enter into composition without accepting the monetary compensation. Dr Chauhan for his client offered Rs 2000 by way of compensation. But Mr Singh told us that his instructions are not to accept the same and the same was not considered necessary for the purpose of composition. This added to our apprehension and we discussed the matter for some time. Ultimately, we were assured that there is nothing hanky-panky about the composition.

5. All the offences for which the appellants are convicted are compoundable and the composition can be entered into with the permission of the court. Looking to the chastened attitute of the accused and the commendable attitude of the injured complainant, in order to restore harmony in the society, we accept the composition. We grant permission to enter into the composition and accept the same. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on both the appellants. If they are on bail, their bail-bonds will be cancelled. If they are in jail, they will be released from the jail forthwith.

Criminal Appeal No. 662 of 1982, decided on December 6, 1982.

Ramji Lal And Another v. State Of Haryana .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments

Injured Complainant’s Position

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Ramji Lal And Another v. State Of Haryana .

Comments