The main legal point established in the judgment is that the compounding of the offence and the reduction of sentence can be based on the compromise between the parties, as provided in Section 320 Cr.P.C. and supported by relevant case law.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case, filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.5 of 2014 dated 24.11.2015 by the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur, confirming the judgment dated 14.02.2014 in C.C.No.505 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur.

1. This revision petition is filed as against the orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur, in Crl.A.No.5 of 2014 dated 24.11.2015 and the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur in C.C.No.505 of 2005 dated 14.02.2014.

2. The petitioner was tried before the learned Judicial Magistrate for the offence under Section 326 and 506(i) IPC and in conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found him guilty for the offence under Section 326 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment in C.C.No.505 of 2005 dated 14.02.2014. Aggrieved over the order of the trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Mahalir Neethi Mandram, Karur in Crl.A.No.5 of 2014. The learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the above appeal and confirmed the orders of the trial Court. Challenging the concurrent judgments of the trial Court and the appellate court, the petitioner preferred the present revision petition.

3. Heard Mr.T.Senthilkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Robinson, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police.

4. At the out set, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even admitting the offence, it would fall only under section 335 of IPC and not under section 326 IPC, which could be compounded under section 320 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the PW1/defacto complainant has already filed an affidavit before this Court that they have solved their issues amicably. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has already undergone 90 days imprisonment pending trial and requested this Court to reduce the sentence to the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner.

5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court delivered in the case of Hasi Mohan Barman and another Vs. State of Assam and another made in Appeal (Crl.) 1534 of 2007, wherein it has been held as follows:

8. Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure says that the offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table. A perusal of Section 320 will show that the offence under Section 313 IPC is not compoundable. Therefore, the consent given by the wife PW-1 or the affidavit filed by her cannot be utilized for the purpose of recording a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused appellants.

9. There are some decisions of this Court wherein the factor of compromise between the accused and the complainant (or injured or person aggrieved) has been taken into consideration for reducing the sentence.

10. The first decision on this point was rendered by this Court in Ram Pujan and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 456, wherein the trial court had convicted the accused under Section 326 IPC which is a non-compoundable offence and had sentenced the accused to four years R.I. The High Court took into consideration the compromise between the accused appellant and the injured and reduced the sentence to two years R.I. This Court, after observing that the fact of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which was little more than four months and further imposed a fine of Rs.1500/- on e