The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. if the parties have amicably settled their dispute, emphasizing the personal nature of the conflict.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 4 in SC No.277 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad Hoc)-II, Thodupuzha, challenging their conviction and sentence under Sections 341 , 326 , 308 read with Section 34 of IPC , vide judgment dated 27.04.2007.

2. The prosecution allegation was that on 03.05.2003, accused Nos.3 and 4 wrongfully restrained PW2-Pandy, and accused Nos.1 and 2 inflicted cut wounds on his neck using choppers causing serious injuries to him, and thus they attempted to commit culpable homicide, in furtherance of their common intention. Crime No.49 of 2003 was registered by Marayoor Police on the basis of FI Statement given by PW1-Ramatha, the wife of PW2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused No.1 to 4 under Sections 341 , 326 , 308 read with Section 34 of IPC .

3. After entering appearance before the trial court, the 1st accused passed away, and hence charge against him abated. Charge was framed against accused Nos.2 to 4 under Sections 341 , 326 , 308 read with Section 34 of IPC , to which all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. PWs 1 to 10 were examined, Exts.P1 to P8 were marked and MOs 1 and 2 were identified from the side of prosecution. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused Nos.2 to 4 were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating materials brought on record and pleaded innocence. DWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.D1 to D7 were marked from defence side.

4. On analysing the facts and evidence, and on hearing the rival contentions from either side, the trial court found accused Nos.2 to 4 guilty under Sections 341 , 326 , 308 read with Section 34 of IPC , and they were convicted thereunder. Each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 326 read with Section 34 of , rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 308 read with Section 34 of , simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 read with Section 34 of . It was directed that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently and the fine amount if realised shall be given to PW2, the injured as compensation. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused Nos.2 to 4 filed this appeal.

5. Meanwhile, the 3rd appellant-Smt.Ponnuthai also passed away and her death certificate also was produced. Since the sentence includes fine amount also, the appeal by her will not abate.

6. Appellants 1 and 2 amicably settled their disputes with the victim, and they produced notarised affidavits filed by PWs 1 and 2, stating that, the appellants are their close relatives, and pending appeal, entire disputes between themselves and the appellants were settled amicably, and they do not want to send them to Jail by retaining their conviction. The disputes between themselves and the appellants were purely personal in nature and no public policy is involved in it.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor was directed to obtain instructions regarding the so-called settlement arrived at between the appellants and PWs 1 and 2. Learned Public Prosecutor produced the statements of PWs 1 and 2, recorded by Sub Inspector of Police, Marayoor, which will show that, they had settled the disputes with the appellants.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that major injuries inflicted on the neck of PW2 was by the 1st accused, who passed away even before facing the trial. The allegation against the 1st appellant (A2) was that, he inflicted a lacerated wound below the mandible of PW2. True that, offences under