1. The State has filed Acquittal Appeal (No. 20 of 1995) against the JUDGMENT dated 24-11-1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch whereby he acquitted the respondents here is. It is stated that the trial court has committed error in appreciating the evidence and the law.

2. On behalf of the respondents; IA-1/ 96 was presented by Mst Zinaba Bi, who is the complainant in this case where in it is stated that during the currency of this appeal the parties have entered into a compromise and they want to compund the offences under sections 323/395 RPC because the parties reside in the same village and this litigation which had started in the year 1988 is providing as a tumbling block for restoring their ago old brotherhood and the complainant who is now an old lady and bed-ridden wants to die peacefully after the village Panchayat had settled the differences between them and the parties want to live in peaceful atmosphere in future as well. Instances are given of the following cases where the Apex Court and this court had granted permission to compound the offences which were non-compoundable and they are:-

(i) Mahesh Chand & another V/s State of Rajasthan (AIR 1998 SC 2111).

(ii) Ved Prakash & another V/s State and others, Criminal Appeal No. 25/97, decided by this court on 25-9-1992.

(iii) Joginder Singh and another V/s State Criminal 1st Appeal No. 5/93 decided by this court on 18-10-1996.

3. In all the above stated cases permission was granted to the parties for compounding the offences which under law were non-compoundable.

4. Heard the arguments.

5. The counsel appearing for the applicants (respondents herein) has relied upon the ratio of the orders passed in the above cited cases as well as contended that this court would be within its jurisdiction to modify the punishment/penalty by moulding the relief, which power it undoubtedly has in view of the long lines of the decisions of the Apex Court when the punishment penalty awarded shocks -the judicial consciences. 6. In support of this argument the learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi V/s Union of India and others (AIR 1996 SC 484) wherein Hon™ble Mr. Justice B.L. Hansaria, in para 23 has held as under:-

"It deserves to be pointed out that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to-do complete justice, and if moulding of relief would do complete justice between the parties, the same cannot be ordered. Absence of provisions like Articles 142 is not material according to me. This may be illustrated by pointing out that despite there being no provision in the constitution parallel to Article 137 conferring power or review on the High Court, this court held as early as 1961 in Shivdeo Singhs case, AIR 1963 Sc 1909, that the High Courts too can exercise power of review, which inheres in very court of plenary jurisdication. It would say that power to do complete justice also inhere its in every court, not to speak of a court of plenary jurisdication like of High Court. Of Course, this power is not as wide which this court has under Article 142. That, however, is a different matter."

7. The counsel appearing for the appellant State had raised the objection that offence under section 395 RPC cannot be compounded being non-compoundable offence and wanted to produce some law within two days, but has failed to do so.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Chand (AIR 1988 SC 2111) (Supra) had granted the permission by treating that as a special case to be compoundable by directing the trial court to permit the parties to compound the offences when the accused were acquitted by the trial court but convicted by the High Court and the counter case arising out of the same transaction stood already compromised. After examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed it was thou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document