SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 1762

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. Bobde and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Kailash Chand – Appellant
versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1868 of 2017 for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4162 of 2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20.10.2016 in SBCRL No.60 of 1992 passed by the High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jaipur)
Decided on 27.10.2017

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. H.D. Thanvi, Ms. Preeti Thanvi, Mr. Rishi Matoliya, AOR and Ms. Deepanshi Vijay, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Mukul Kumar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction under Article 142 of Constitution of India can be exercised to compound offences which do not have impact on society in general.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 307 and 326Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 320Constitution of India – Article 142 – Attempt to murder and hurt – Conviction and sentence – Incident has occurred almost 30 years ago – Since complainant/s and appellant-accused belong to same family and are living in same house, they have buried their animosity and settled their disputes amicably in writing under an agreement letter copy of which is already placed on the file – Injured victims are brother and sister-in-law of appellant. It is also stated in application for compromise/compounding of offence that there is no untoward incident has ever taken place after date of incident – Though offences under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC are non-compoundable, having regard to fact that incident in present case did not have impact on society in general – Having regard to fact that dispute between parties has been settled amicably and there is no likelihood of repetition of such incident, application for compromise/compounding of offence allowed and orders of conviction and sentence passed by courts below against appellant set aside by exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142 of Constitution of India – Appellant ordered to be acquitted of charges levelled against him. (Paras 7 and 8)

Result: Appeal allowed.

ORDER

The petitioner has preferred this special leave petition against the impugned judgment dated 20.10.2016 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.60 of 1992, disallowing the said appeal and affirming the judgment dated 06.02.1992 of the trial court whereby the petitioner was convicted for offences under sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo 4 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, on each count with default clause.

2. Application for impleadment is allowed.

3. Cause title be amended accordingly.

4. Leave granted.

5. Despite service of notice, the respondent-State has not chosen to appear.

6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the application for compromise/compounding of offence.

7. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the incident has occurred almost 30 years ago. Since the complainant/s and the appellant-accused belong to the same family and are living in the same house, they have buried their animosity and settled their disputes amicably in writing under an agreement letter dated 28.07.2017, copy of which is already placed on the file. The injured victims are brother and sister-in-law of the appellant. It is also stated in the aforesaid application for compromise/compounding of offence that there is no untoward incident has ever taken place after the date of incident.

8. Though the offences under sections 307 and 326 of the IPC are non-compoundable, having regard to the fact that the incident in the present case did not have an impact on the society in general, and having regard to the fact that the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably and there is no likelihood of the repetition of such incident, we allow the application for compromise/compounding of offence and set aside the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below against the appellant by exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The appellant is ordered to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Since the appellant is confined in jail, he is ordered to be released from custody forthwith if not required in any other case.

9. Hence, the appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Appeal allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top