Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 947
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
Sendrayan (Died) & Others – Appellant
Versus
The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Theni District – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case (MD)No. 565 of 2008
Decided On : 18-02-2015
For the Petitioners:J. Sulthan Basha for M/s. Ajmal Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondent:S. Prabha, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
The court has the authority to modify the conviction of the accused and compound the offences based on the evidence and compromise memo.
Headnote:
House-trespass - Criminal Law - IPC 452, 427, 506(ii) - Summary: The court considered the evidence and acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC. The court modified the conviction of the accused under Section 452 IPC to one under Section 451 IPC and confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 427 IPC. The court compounded the offences under Sections 451 and 427 IPC in light of the compromise memo signed by the complainant and the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted for offences under Sections 452, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C. The trial Court convicted them for the commission of offence under Section 452 I.P.C. and imposed a sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence of three months simple imprisonment and for the commission of offence under Section 427 I.P.C. The trial Court further acquitted the petitioners/accused for the commission of offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court modified the conviction of the accused under Section 452 IPC to one under Section 451 IPC and confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 427 IPC. The court compounded the offences under Sections 451 and 427 IPC in light of the compromise memo signed by the complainant and the accused.
Issues: Conviction under Sections 452, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C., modification of the conviction under Section 452 IPC, compounding of the offences under Sections 451 and 427 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC. The court modified the conviction of the accused under Section 452 IPC to one under Section 451 IPC and confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 427 IPC. The court compounded the offences under Sections 451 and 427 IPC in light of the compromise memo signed by the complainant and the accused.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed under Sections 451 and 427 I.P.C. against the petitioners 2 and 3/accused 2 and 3 are set aside and they are acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded to them. The bail bonds executed by the petitioners 2 and 3/accused 2 and 3 shall stand terminated.
1. The petitioners are arrayed as accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.822 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Theni and they stood tried and charged for the commission of offences under Sections 452, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C. The trial Court after a full-fledged trial, has convicted them for the commission of offence under Section 452 I.P.C. and imposed a sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence of three months simple imprisonment and for the commission of offence under Section 427 I.P.C. convicted them to three months rigorous imprisonment and further ordered the sentences shall run concurrently and further ordered set off the period of incarceration already undergone by the third accused during the course of the investigation and trial, under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The trial Court further acquitted the petitioners/accused for the commission of offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C.
2. The petitioners/accused, aggrieved by the same, preferred the appeal in C.A.No.37 of 2007, on the file of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Periyakulam. The lower appellate Court has also confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, vide order dated 30.05.2008 and hence, this Criminal Revision Case is filed.
3. During pendency of this Criminal Revision Case, the first petitioner/first accused has died on 17.03.2009 and a memo to that effect has been filed and therefore the charges framed against the first petitioner/first accused have become abated this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as against him.
4. Mr.J.Sulthan Basha, learned counsel, representing M/s.Ajmal Associates would submit that during pendency of this Criminal Revision Case, the petitioners 2 and 3/accused 2 and 3 as well as P.W.1/de facto complainant have amicably settled the matter and the only impediment is that the offence under Section 452 I.P.C. cannot be compounded for the reason that it is a non-compoundable offence and prays for modification of the conviction into one under Section 451 I.P.C. for the reason that admittedly the petitioners/accused were acquitted for the commission of offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. and the State has not preferred any appeal and therefore the acquittal on that charge has become final and in the light of the acquittal of the said charge, the ingredients of Section 452 I.P.C. have not been made out and therefore prays for appropriate orders.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) on instructions would confirm that the petitioners 2 and 3/accused 2 and 3 as well as P.W.1/de facto complainant have compromised the matter and taking into consideration the compromise memo dated 18.02.2015, signed by the petitioners 2 and 3/accused 2 and P.W.1/de facto complainant, appropriate orders may be passed.
6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.
7. The prosecution in order to sustain their case has examined P.Ws.1 to 8, marked Exs.P.1 to 5 and M.Os.1 to 3 before the trial Court and all the petitioners/accused were also questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against them in the evidence tendered by the prosecution and they denied it as false. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked.
8. The trial Court based on the oral and documentary evidences, has convicted the petitioners/accused under Sections 452 and 427 I.P.C. and imposed the sentence as stated above and acquitted them for the commission of offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. and it was also confirmed in the appeal.
9. A perusal of the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses would disclose that accused 1 and 2 had entered into the premises of P.W.1 armed with rod and sticks and threatened them with dire consequences and also damaged the articles. However, with regard to the commission of offence
