D. M. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THE only question raised in this revision is whether the High Court in exercise of its revisional as well as the inherent power can direct the lower court to compound an offence not permissible under S. 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'code' ).

( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is, deceased Pranakrushna Panda had purchased a piece of land from the petitioners situated near his Bari side and the deceased had put a fence on the boundary line. On 3-6-87 at about 8 p. m. , hearing petitioner Golak removing the fence put by the deceased, the latter reached the spot and protested. There was an altercation. Thereafter, petitioner Golak dealt a blow with a spade on the head of deceased Pranakrushna causing a bleeding injury. Pranakrushna was removed to the hospital in an unconscious state and was treated as an indoor patient, but died on 24-6-87. The petitioners faced trial for the offence punishable under S. 326, IPC and nine P. Ws. were examined from the side of the prosecution when a petition was filed on 20-4-91, signed by the son of deceased Pranakrushna and the petitioners, making a prayer therein to the court to permit to compound the offence. It was also stated in the said petition that the counter C. R. Case No. 141 of 87 at the instance of the present petitioner had already been compromised. The Subordinate Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, First Class, rejected the prayer for compromise holding that the same was not permissible under S. 320 of the Code and secondly, the compromise petition was not signed by the injured as provided in the appropriate column of S. 320 of the Code.

( 3 ) MR. L. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the case of Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111, submitted that this Court can permit the parties to compound the offence since amity between the two parties has been brought out by way of compromise in the counter-case. Mr. J. M. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to direct compounding of the offence since it is not permissible under S. 320 of the Code. He referred to the case of Sanatan Ram v. State (1991) 4 OCR 25 : (1991 Cri LJ 758 ). I am of the view that because the Supreme Court allowed an offence under S. 307, IPC to be compounded, this Court cannot in exercise of its inherent powers under S. 482 of the Code direct compounding of offence not permissible under S. 320 of the Code. Following the decision reported in AIR 1980 SC 1200 Rajinder Singh v. The State (Delhi Admn.), and also accepting the view taken by this Court in the case of Sanatana (supra) I unable to accept the contention of Mr. Mohapatra. Therefore, it has to be examined whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, a case under S. 326 IPC has been made out.

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the deceased was an. old man of 70 years. The occurrence took place during the night hours. Petitioner Golak was there at the spot and removing the fence when the deceased reached. Thus Golak did not come armed with a spade, but the spade was there at the spot. Golak dealt the blow with the spade during the altercation. He gave only one blow with the spade which is a heavy instrument. The doctor who first examined Pranakrushna stated confirming his injury report (Ext. 2) that there was a single incised wound of the size of 3" x 1/2" x scalp deep extending entro-posteriorly over the left fronto parietal area 3" above the left supra-orbital margin. The opinion with regard to the nature of the wound was reserved. The x-ray reports (Exts. 3 and 4) revealed along with the evidence of the Radiologist (P. W. 9) that there was only a linear fracture of the left frontal bone. Thus, it is amply clear that the Doctor (P. W. 1) who first examined Pranakrushna did not find fracture of the skull bone on his external examination of the injury on the head. This shows that Golak did not give