The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly regarding the compounding of offences under the Indian Penal Code.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The question involved in the instant appeal is whether in view of the lapse of period of 19 years in litigation as well as the age and conduct of the appellants herein and the compromise entered into amongst the appellants, the complainant and the injured witnesses, the appellants can be permitted to compound the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) for which they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. The appellants have also filed a joint petition being Crl. M.P. No. 43053 of 2017 for grant of permission to compound the aforesaid offences.

3. It is relevant to mention here that compounding of an offence is statutorily provided under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Cr. P.C.). If we look at the list of offences which are specified in the Table attached to Section 320 of the Code, it would be clear that there are basically two categories of offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) which have been made compoundable.

4. There is a category of offence for the compounding of which leave of the Court is required and there is another category of offences where for compounding the leave of the Court is not required. But all cases of compounding can take place at the instance of persons mentioned in the Third Column of the Table. If the said Table is perused, it will be clear that compounding can only be possible at the instance of the person who is either a complainant or who has been injured or is aggrieved.

5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the record, we find that in the instant case, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC is compoundable under Section 320(a) of Cr.P.C. by the person to whom the hurt is caused and the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC is compoundable under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. with the permission of the Court by the person to whom hurt is caused by means of dangerous weapons. It is noted that the father of the complainant viz. Prahlad, who was an injured witness PW-2 and whom the grievous injury in the form of fracture had been caused, has since been died, and therefore, as per the provisions contained under Section 320(4)(b) of the Cr.P.C. the complainant and his brothers have entered into the compromise on behalf of PW-2. Section 320(4)(b) of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

"(b) When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is dead, the legal representatives, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) of such person may, with the consent of the Court, compound such offence."

6. Since the complainant and his three injured brothers have entered into the compromise and the grievously injured witness PW-2, father of the complainant, is reported to be dead, we are of the view that the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC are compoundable and the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of compounding of those offences.

7. Under the Code, as originally enacted in 1973, an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) was made compoundable with the leave of the Court. It is true that the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC is non-compoundable by virtue of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act No.25 of 2005) which came into force with effect from 23.06.2006.

8. According to the prosecution, the appellants had committed the offence on 12.01.1998. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, Act 25 of 2005 has no application to the facts of the instant case. Thus, this situation is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Sufan Laskar and Others vs. State of Assam, (2008) 9 SCC 333, whereby this Court has held that the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC which