PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehtab S. Gill, J.
Lal Singh and others - Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 626-SB of 1987.
Decided On : 19 November, 2003
Compounding of Offences - Criminal Law - The court permitted the compounding of non-compoundable offences under Section 307/148 of the Indian Penal Code based on the compromise reached by the parties, in line with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The parties have compromised the matter, and the complainant has made a statement in court to that effect. The appellants have undergone more than four months of actual sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court permitted the compounding of the offences under Section 307/148 of the Indian Penal Code, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, in the interest of justice and to allow the parties to live in peace.
Issues: Compounding of non-compoundable offences, interpretation of legal provisions regarding compounding of offences, consideration of compromise reached by the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal and another v. State of J & K, 1999 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 123, and Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2111, to permit the compounding of non-compoundable offences based on the compromise reached by the parties.
Final Decision: The sentence of the appellants was modified to the extent of the period already undergone, and the appeal was disposed of.
Mehtab S. Gill, J. - This appeal has come up for final hearing.
2. At the very out-set, learned counsel for the appellants has stated that the parties have compromised the matter. He has further stated that Swaran Singh, complainant, is present in person along with appellants.
3. Swaran Singh, complainant, has made a statement in the Court that he has compromised the matter with the appellants.
4. Learned counsel for the State has stated that some of the offences are non-compoundable and if the appellants have compromised the matter, at the most, sentence can be modified to the extent of already undergone.
5. As per the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ram Lal and another v. State of J & K, 1999 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 123, the Honble Supreme Court has held that non-compoundable offences falling outside the two tables under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, offences cannot be compounded even with the permission of the Court. But considering the fact that the parties have come to a settlement and the appellant-accused have undergone more than six months, sentence reduced to the period already undergone.
6. In the case in hand, learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants have undergone more than four months of actual sentence.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2111, wherein he Honble Supreme Court had held that offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, though it is not compoundable under the law, but as the parties have compromised the matter, the Court should permit the parties to compound the offence.
8. As the parties have come to a settlement, so that the parties can live in peace, in the interest of justice, this Court permits compounding of ther offences under Section 307/148 of the Indian Penal Code.
Sentence of the appellants is modified to this extent as already undergone by gone.
With the above modification, appeal is disposed of.
Order accordingly.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.