Back
2011 Supreme(SC) 691
2012 CrLJ 986
Supreme Court of India
HARJIT SINGH BEDI & GYAN SUDHA MISRA
K.K. Sreedharan & Others
Versus
State Of Kerala & Another
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1374 OF 2004
Decided on : 21-07-2011
For the Petitioner:Himinder Lal, Advocate. For the Respondents:G. Praksh, Advocate.
.
A court may reduce a sentence to the period already undergone upon a compromise between parties, even if some of the convictions involve non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 320 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 147, 447, 342 and 427 read with Section 149 - Compromise petition - Appellants convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code - Only offences under Sections 143 and 147 found to be non-compoundable, whereas others are compoundable - In view of the fact that parties have compromised their dispute, sentence reduced to the period already undergone.
Facts of the case:
Appellants were convicted under Sections 143, 147, 447, 342 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. During the appeal, the parties filed a compromise petition under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that whereas the offences under Sections 143 and 147 are non-compoundable, all other offences cited are compoundable. Given the settlement between the parties, the court modified the sentence to the period already undergone.
Issues: Whether the sentence of the appellants could be reduced to the period already undergone based on a compromise petition when some of the offences involved are non-compoundable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the fact of a compromise between the parties is a sufficient ground to reduce the sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone, notwithstanding that certain offences are non-compoundable under the law.
Result: Appeal dismissed; sentence reduced to the period already undergone.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences against public tranquillity
- unlawful assembly
- rioting
-
offences against property
- criminal trespass
- mischief
-
offences against the person
- wrongful confinement
-
offences against public tranquillity
-
practice and procedure
-
criminal procedure
- compounding of offences
- appeal
-
sentencing
- reduction of sentence
-
criminal procedure
Judgment :
We have heard Mr. Roy Abraham learned counsel for the appellant as also Mr. P.S. Sudheer, learned counsel for the complainant. The parties have filed a compromise petition in this court under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We, however, find that the complainant has been convicted under Sections 143, 147, 447, 342 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and that but for the offences under Sections 143 and 147, all the other offences are compoundable. In the light of the fact that the parties have compromised their dispute we reduce the sentence of the appellants to that already undergone. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
