Y. Suresh Babu v. State Of A.P .

Factual and Procedural Background

Special leave was granted in an appeal where the appellant had been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment. The incident involved the appellant stabbing D. Narsinga Rao (Respondent No. 2) after an altercation near Respondent No. 2’s pan shop. During the Supreme Court proceedings, the parties moved an application under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking leave to compound the offence, stating that they had reconciled through well-wishers and wished to preserve amity as they belonged to the same locality.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court should grant leave under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to compound an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, despite it being non-compoundable.
2. If leave is granted, what conditions (including compensation) should govern the compounding and its effect on the conviction and sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Submissions

• Although Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable, the parties have reconciled their differences through the intervention of well-wishers and seek permission to compound to preserve amity and good relations.
• The incident was described as unfortunate, and the appellant expressed remorse.

Respondent No. 2's Submissions

• Respondent No. 2’s counsel joined in the request for permission to compound the offence.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the appellant stood convicted under Section 326 IPC, which is a non-compoundable offence. Nevertheless, considering the “overall view of the facts and circumstances,” including the reconciliation between the parties from the same locality, the Court granted leave as a special case to compound the offence. The permission was made conditional upon the appellant paying compensation of Rs 10,000 to Respondent No. 2 for the physical injury suffered. The Court structured the relief so that failure to deposit the compensation within the stipulated time would leave the conviction and sentence intact, whereas timely deposit would result in setting aside the conviction and sentence. The Court expressly directed that the order should not be treated as a precedent.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF: The Court permitted compounding of the offence as a special case, conditional upon the appellant depositing Rs 10,000 as compensation with the Court of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad within one month.

If the deposit is not made within the permitted period, the conviction and sentence under Section 326 IPC remain operative. If the deposit is made in time, the conviction and sentence are set aside, and Respondent No. 2 may withdraw the amount unconditionally. The appellant was directed to be enlarged on bail in the meantime on terms fixed by the Sessions Judge. The Court stated that the case shall not be treated as a precedent, and thus it did not purport to lay down any general rule beyond the parties’ case.