P.D Rajan, J.:— This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 301/2006 of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Alappuzha. They were charge sheeted in C.C No. 316/2003 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha u/s.452, 324 and 323 r/w.34 IPC. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused u/s.452 and 323 r/w.34 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months each and fine of 5,000/- each u/s.452 r/w.4 IPC, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month each. They were also sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months each u/s.323 IPC. They were acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C for offence u/s.324 IPC. Being aggrieved by that, they preferred the above criminal appeal before Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-II, Alappuzha, where the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, they preferred this revision petition.
2. The charge against the accused is that on 8.6.2003 at 4.30 p.m, the accused in furtherance of their common intention committed house trespass into the house of PW1, the first accused voluntarily caused hurt to him by beating with a dangerous spanner and the second accused voluntarily caused hurt to him by fisting, thereby committed the above offence. To prove the allegation, prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Exts.P1 to P5. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them. They did not adduce any defence evidence.
3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the parties have settled the matter out of Court due to the intervention of mediators and they have filed Crl.M.A 6728/2016, in which both parties have signed. PW1 present and submitted that the revision petitioners are his neighbours and no compensation has been claimed from the revision petitioners.
4. According to Section 320(1) Cr.P.C, offences punishable under IPC specified in the first two columns of the table next following may be compounded by the person mentioned in the third column of that table. According to Section 320(2) Cr.P.C, offences punishable under IPC specified in the first two columns of the table next following may be with permission of the court, before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the person mentioned in the third column of that table.
5. When offences are compoundable and the case is committed for trial or the accused is convicted and appeal is pending, the compounding can be allowed with leave of the court. According to Section 320(6) Cr.P.C, High Court or Court of Session in exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person who is competent to compound under this section. When composition of an offence is made, it shall have the effect of an acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C The offence u/s.323 r/w.34 IPC is a compoundable offence and parties are permitted compound the offence. But Section 320(9) Cr.P.C says that no offences shall be compounded except as provided in the section. The offence under section 452 IPC is non compoundable. Any compromise between the accused person and the victim of the crime should not exonerate the criminal liability of the accused. However, when an offence is essentially of a private nature and not a serious one, the code consider it as a compoundable offence and some offences are compoundable with the permission of the court. Most of the compoundable offences are non cognizable, but all non-cognizable offences are not compoundable. On the other hand, the offences which are compoundable with the permission of the court are cognizable offence, at the same time all cognizable offences are not compoundable. Therefore Section 320(9) Cr.P.C makes it clear that offences not provided by this section are not compoundable. Therefore, broadly speaking, offences other than those specified in Section 320(1) and (2) Cr.P Ccannot be compounded. According to the scheme of the section, all offences under special or local laws are non compoundable and the legislature has to make a clear indication in those laws as to what extent offences under such laws should be compounded. No offence shall be compounded except as directed by this Court. For the purpose of seeking the ends of justice, the sentence has to be reduced to the period already undergone. The offence u/s.452 is a non compoundable offence. Apex Court in Ram Bujan v. State of UP (1973 SCC (Cri) 870) held that if parties belonging to one family settled their dispute, it is not necessary to keep them in jail for a long time. The incident had happened long back. In Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab (1983 SCC (Cri) 52), apex court reiterated the view that to meet the ends of justice the sentence has to be reduced to the period already undergone. Hence the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha under Section 323 IPC is compounded under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C and the accused are acquitted thereunder. The offence under Section 452 r/w.34 IPC is non compoundable. In view of the compromise, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the revision petitioners u/s.452 r/w.34 IPC is reduced to till rising of Court and fine of 10,000/- each.
6. The revision petition is disposed of as above.
Comments