Non-compoundable offenses can be compounded in exceptional circumstances, such as when the parties have reached a settlement and the court finds it just and equitable to do so. In such cases, the court may convert the offense to a compoundable one or reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.

R.Suresh Kumar, J.

These Criminal Appeals have been preferred against the judgment and conviction made by the learned XVII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C.Nos.118 & 119 of 2015 & S.C.No.122 of 2015, and S.C.No.396 of 2014, dated 28.01.2016.

2. Since the subject matter of both these appeals arise out of the conviction made by the Trial Court in two separate judgments on the same day i.e., on 28.01.2016, in respect of the same occurrence, both these appeals were clubbed together for hearing.

3. At the outset it is to be noticed that Mr.S.Ananthanarayanan and Mr.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, during the hearing of these appeals have made submissions that, since there had been a settlement reached between the appellants/accused and the defacto complainants/victims, in both the cases, each of the appellants herein, has filed an affidavit to the effect of seeking the permission of this Court, for compounding the offences between them. Therefore, mainly on that aspect, submissions have been made by the learned respective Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants.

4. To understand the issue, the necessary facts which are required to be noticed, are provided hereunder:

Crl.A.No.129 of 2016:

4.1. According to the prosecution, at the relevant point of time, there exists, ill feeling between two groups of students in Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai. One group consists of hostel students and another group students consists of day scholars. Between them, there had been some hatchet for the alleged reason that, the day scholar group, for celebrating 'Devar Jayanthi' on 30.10.2008, is said to have pasted posters in and around the law college, where the name of the college had been shown only as "Government Law College", by omitting the word Dr.Ambedkar as a prefix.

4.2. In view of the alleged omission of the name of Dr.Ambekar in the alleged posters pasted by the day scholar group, it seems that, the hostel group students questioned them, with the result, on 06.11.2008, there had been a wordy quarrel between the two groups followed by an alleged assault of the day scholar students on the hostel students on 07.11.2008 at the Broadway bus stand, which is nearer to the college.

4.3. Having the aforesaid hatred and motive, the students of both the group gathered in the afternoon on 12.11.2008 at the campus of Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai, where there had been an unlawful assembly and a clash between the two groups of students, with the result, three students were injured severely and they were taken to hospital, where they were admitted as inpatients for a month and were treated.

4.4. Pursuant to the said occurrence, cases had been registered on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant, one Ayyadurai, and accordingly, the case had been investigated and charge sheet filed against 41 accused persons, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 r/w 109 and 153-A of IPC.

4.5. On receipt of the final report (charge sheet) filed by the prosecution, the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai had taken it on file, as a Preliminary Registered Case No.31/15 [PRC]. Since there had been pendency of NBW against A16-one Premnath, the learned Magistrate split up the case against the accused and took the same on file as PRC.No.32 of 2015. During the pendency of PRC.No.32 of 2015, since NBW was pending against some of the accused persons, the learned Magistrate had split up the case against those accused persons and taken the same on file as PRC.No.33 of 2015. Thereafter, on appearance of the accused, the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, had given copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and on a perusal of the case records and material objects and statements of the witnesses, finding that the offences under Section 307, 506