IMPORTANT POINT
Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not encapsulate Section 324 and 307 IPC under its list of compoundable offences. However, fact of amicable settlement can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in quantum of sentence.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 307, 324 and 341 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 320 – Attempt to murder, hurt and wrongful restraint – Compounding of offence – Parties have on advice of their elders entered into amicable settlement – Appellants have admitted their fault, taken responsibility for their actions and have maturely sought forgiveness from victim – In turn, victim has benevolently acknowledged apology and considering young age of appellants at the time of incident, has forgiven appellants and settled dispute – Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not encapsulate Section 324 and 307 IPC under its list of compoundable offences – However, fact of amicable settlement can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in quantum of sentence – It is a fit case to take a sympathetic view and reconsider quantum of sentences awarded to appellants – Considering that parties are on friendly terms now and they inhabit same society, this is a fit case for reduction of sentence – Appellants have no other criminal antecedents, no previous enmity and today are married and have children – They are sole bread earners of their family and have significant social obligations to tend to – In such circumstances, it might not serve interests of society to keep them incarcerated any further – Both appellants have served a significant portion of their sentences – Sentence of both appellants reduced to period already undergone by them. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 13 to 17)
Facts of the Case:
Present connected appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 01.11.2018 of the High Court of Madras which upheld Murali’s (appellant in SLP (Crl) No 10813/2019) conviction under Sections 324 and 341 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 with a sentence of three months’ rigorous imprisonment, and Rajavelu’s (appellant in SLP (Crl) 10814/2019) conviction under Sections 307 and 341 of IPC and sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Findings of Court:
Parties to the dispute have mutually buried their hatchet. The separate affidavit of the victim inspires confidence that the apology has voluntarily been accepted given the efflux of time and owing to the maturity brought about by age. There is no question of the settlement being as a result of any coercion or inducement. Considering that the parties are on friendly terms now and they inhabit the same society, this is a fit case for reduction of sentence.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.

ORDER:

Leave granted.

2. These connected appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 01.11.2018 of the High Court of Madras which upheld Murali’s (appellant in SLP (Crl) No 10813/2019) conviction under Sections 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) with a sentence of three months’ rigorous imprisonment, and Rajavelu’s (appellant in SLP (Crl) 10814/2019) conviction under Sections 307 and 341 of IPC and sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.08.2005, one Senthil had a verbal altercation with Kumar (original accused no. 3) and Krishnan (original accused no. 5) during a volleyball match. The injured-victim (Sathya @ Sathiyajothi) came to the aid of his friend Senthil and opposed both Kumar and Krishnan. Thereafter at about 2:30PM on 09.08.2005, the appellants – Rajavelu and Murali (original accused nos. 1 and 2) along with Muthu, Kumar and Krishnan (original accused nos. 3, 4 and 5) cornered the victim and assaulted him. Murali allegedly struck the victim on his head with a hockey stick and Rajavelu tried to kill him by giving a neck blow with a Veechu Aruval (sharp-edged object), which was fortunately blocked by the victim. In the process, the left hand of the victim and the thumb and finger of his right hand got severed. The victim was able to escape and the matter was reported by his friend, PW1. All five persons were arrested. It further led to registration of Crime No. 531 of 2005 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 352, 323, 324, 307 and 34 of the IPC.

4. Relying upon the testimony of the victim (PW3), which was held to be unimpeachable and stellar, the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, vide his judgment dated 28.01.2012 held Murali guilty of wrongfully restraining the victim and voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon. Based upon the medical evidence and recovery of the Veechu Aruval from Rajavelu, the trial Court further opined that the second-appellant (Rajavelu) had a clear intention to murder the victim and that if not for the victim defending himself, a fatal injury would have been caused to his neck and he would have died instantaneously. Consequently, a concurrent sentence of three months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC and one-month rigorous imprisonment under Section 341 IPC was imposed on Murali, and Rajavelu was awarded five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and another one month rigorous imprisonment under Section 341 IPC. Muthu, Kumar and Krishnan were acquitted as there was no specific allegation by the victim and no weapon or injury had been attributed to them by the prosecution.

5. The convict-appellants challenged the aforestated judgment before two forums, both of which unanimously upheld their conviction. The Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge dismissed the first appeal through an order dated 20.08.2013 and their criminal revision petition before the High Court also met with the same fate vide an order dated 01.11.2018.

6. Unsatisfied still, the appellants have approached this Court seeking special leave to appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of their conviction. However, through an application filed on 22.11.2019, they have sought to implead the injured-victim and get their offences compounded based on mutual resolution and peaceful settlement between the parties. This Court, nevertheless, issued limited notice only on the quantum of sentence.

7. The records of the case elicit that the findings of all three preceding forums are concurrent and without fault. Not only have the appellants been unable to mount an effective challenge founded upon a question of law, their learned Counsels, given the subsequent events and change in circumstances, have very fairly restricted their prayer qua reduction of sentence only.

8. A perusal of the applications for impleadment and compounding makes it clear that the parties have on the advice of their elders entered into an a