- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ram Lal And Another v. State Of J&K .
Factual and Procedural Background
Ram Lal (first appellant) was convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The second appellant was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to two years. After conviction, the parties entered into a compromise and filed a petition seeking permission to compound both offences. The present Supreme Court judgment addresses that request and the consequential reliefs sought by the appellants.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an offence declared non-compoundable under Section 326 IPC can nevertheless be compounded by the Court in view of earlier Supreme Court decisions.
- What relief, if any, should be granted to the appellants in light of the compromise between the parties.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Urged the Court to permit compounding of both offences on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
- Relied on Supreme Court decisions in Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A.P. (JT 1987 2 SC 361) and Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan (1990 Supp SCC 681), where compounding of non-compoundable offences had been allowed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A.P. JT (1987) 2 SC 361 |
Example where a non-compoundable offence was permitted to be compounded. | Court noted that the judgment itself stated it “shall not be treated as a precedent” and therefore declined to follow it. |
| Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan 1990 Supp SCC 681 |
Allowed compounding of an offence under Section 307 IPC despite statutory bar. | Held to be rendered per incuriam because Section 320(9) CrPC, which prohibits such compounding, was not brought to the Court’s attention. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides an exhaustive list of offences that may be compounded—with or without court permission. Sub-section (9) explicitly prohibits compounding “except as provided by this section.” Because Section 326 IPC is not included in either of the statutory tables, it is non-compoundable. The Court observed that earlier decisions permitting compounding of non-compoundable offences were rendered per incuriam as they overlooked the statutory bar in Section 320(9).
Notwithstanding the statutory bar, the Court considered the compromise, the lack of grievance from the victims, and the fact that the first appellant had already served approximately six months of imprisonment. Exercising its appellate jurisdiction, it reduced the first appellant’s sentence to the period already undergone. For the second appellant—whose offence under Section 324 IPC is compoundable—the Court allowed the compromise under Section 320(8) CrPC, resulting in acquittal.
Holding and Implications
The appeal was partly allowed and disposed of as follows:
- Compounding of the offence under Section 326 IPC was refused; however, the first appellant’s sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, and he was ordered to be released forthwith.
- The offence under Section 324 IPC was permitted to be compounded; the second appellant’s conviction and sentence were set aside, and he was acquitted.
Implications: The judgment reaffirms the statutory prohibition against compounding non-compoundable offences under Section 320(9) CrPC and clarifies that prior decisions to the contrary are per incuriam. While granting individual relief on humanitarian considerations, the Court leaves intact the legislative scheme governing compounding and does not create a new precedent permitting deviations from that scheme.
1. Leave granted.
2. The first appellant Ram Lal stands convicted of the offence under Section 326 of the IPC and is undergoing a sentence of three years. The second appellant has been convicted of Section 324 of the IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for two years. The parties have compromised and a petition for compounding has been filed. We cannot accede to the request for compounding in regard to the offence under Section 326 IPC as the same is a non-compoundable offence. Shri D.D Thakur, learned Senior Counsel, invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A.P JT (1987) 2 SC 361 and Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan 1990 Supp SCC 681 wherein non-compoundable offences were allowed to be compounded. In Y. Suresh Babu JT (1987) 2 SC 361 it was specifically observed that the said case “shall not be treated as a precedent”. In the latter case (Mahesh Chand 1990 Supp SCC 681) offence under Section 307 IPC was permitted to be compounded with the following observations:
“3. We gave our anxious consideration to the case and also the plea put forward for seeking permission to compound the offence. After examining the nature of the case and circumstances under which the offence was committed, it may be proper that the trial court shall permit them to compound the offence.”
3. We are unable to follow the said decision as a binding precedent. Section 320 which deals with “compounding of offences” provides two Tables therein, one containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded by the person mentioned in it, and the other containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded with the permission of the court by the persons indicated therein. Only such offences as are included in the said two Tables can be compounded and none else. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 imposes a legislative ban in the following terms:
“320. (9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section.”
4. It is apparent that when the decision in Mahesh Chand 1990 Supp SCC 681 was rendered, the attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to the aforesaid legal prohibition. Nor was the attention of the learned Judges who rendered the decision in Y. Suresh Babu JT (1987) 2 SC 361 drawn. Hence those were decisions rendered per incuriam. We hold that an offence which law declares to be non-compoundable even with the permission of the court cannot be compounded at all. The offence under Section 326 IPC is, admittedly, non-compoundable and hence we cannot accede to the request of the learned counsel to permit the same to be compounded.
5. However, considering the fact that the parties have come to a settlement and the victims have no grievance now and considering the further fact that the first appellant has already undergone a period of imprisonment of about six months, a lenient view can be taken and the sentence can be reduced to the period which he has already undergone. We order so and direct the jail authorities to set him at liberty forthwith.
6. Regarding the second appellant, we permit the parties to compound the offence (Section 324 IPC) in view of the joint application filed by the legal representatives of the deceased-complainant and the second appellant (vide his application Crl. MP No. 7648 of 1998). In view of the aforesaid compounding of the offence under Section 324 of IPC, we set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the second appellant and he is acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Alert