Back
1999(3) Crimes 37 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Orissa High Court)
K.T. Thomas, M.B. Shah and D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.
Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Orissa —Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 497-98 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 196–197 of 1999)
Decided on 4-5-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Vijay Hansaria, Sunil Jain, Advocate for M/s. Jain Hansaria & Co., Advocates.
For the Respondent : Jana Kalyan Das, Advocate.
Important Point
Offence under Section 326 IPC cannot be allowed to be compounded in view of legislative mandate contained in Section 320(9) of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 320—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 326—Compounding of offences — Accused convicted under Section 326 by High Court altering conviction rendered by trial Court u/s 307—Accused seeking permission to compound offence on ground dispute settled amicably and matter was compromised—Refusal by High Court—Justified—In view of legislative mandate contained in sub-section (9) of Section 320 offence u/s 326 IPC cannot be compounded—Ram Pujan & Ors. v. State of U.P., 1973(2) SC 456 and Mahesh Chand & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 1988(1) SCC 618 rendered perincuriam — Considering fact that parties settled their disputes outside Court and 10 years have lapsed from date of incident and appellants have already undergone 3 months imprisonment as per sentence imposed on them, imprisonment reduced to period already undergone besides imposing a fine of Rs. 5000 on each of accused—Rs. 9000 to be paid to victim as compensation out of fine realised. (Paras 4 to 8)
Result : Appeal disposed of accordingly.
Judgment
Shah, J.—Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 5th September, 1997 and 10th November, 1997 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Criminal Revision No. 436 of 1994 and Miscellaneous Case No. 521 of 1997 whereby Revision Petition against the conviction order and the application for correction, alteration and for compounding offence filed by the appellants were rejected.
3. The appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 307, 326, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced to 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of which to undergo R.I. for one month. That Order was challenged before the High Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 436 of 1994. After considering the entire evidence on record, the Court held that from the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the injured, and also from the manner in which the car struck against the injured, it was difficult to come to a conclusion that the intention of the accused was to kill the injured and, therefore, it would be hazardous to uphold their conviction under Section 307 IPC. After considering the injuries caused to the witness, the High Court altered the conviction of the appellants under Section 326, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the affidavit of the witness produced on record, the Court imposed sentence of six month’s R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of which to undergo R.I. for further three months for the offence under Section 326 IPC and no separate sentence was imposed on the other counts of offences. Against that order, these appeals are filed by special leave.
4. It is vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that as the dispute was amicably settled and the matter was compromised, the High Court ought to have granted permission to compound the offences and ought not to have convicted the appellants and imposed the sentence. For this purpose, reliance is placed upon the decisions of this Court in Ram Pujan & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh1 and Mahesh Chand & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan2 . As against this, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the offence under Section 326 is not compoundable and the High Court has rightly rejected the application for compounding the same. He, for this purpose, relied upon the Judgment of this Court in Ram Lal & Anr. v. State of J & K3 wherein after referring to Section 320(9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court observed that the decision in Mahesh Chand (supra) was rendered perincuriam.
5. In our view, submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent requires to be accepted. For compounding of the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, complete scheme is provided under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub-section (1) of Section 320 provides that the offences mentioned in the table provided thereunder can be compounded by the persons mentioned in Column No. 3 of the said table. Further, sub-Section (2) provides that, the offences mentioned in the table could be compounded by the victim with the permission of the Court. As against this, sub-section (9) specifically provides that “no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section.” In view of the aforesaid legislative mandate, only the offences which are covered by table 1 or 2 as stated above can be compounded and the rest of the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code could not be compounded.
6. Further, decision in Ram Pujan’s case (supra) does not advance the contention raised by the appellants. In the said case, the Court held that the major offences for which accused have been convicted were no doubt non-compoundable, but the fact of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence. In Ram Lal (supra), the Court referred to the decision of this Court in Y.
