Amicable settlement between parties mitigates criminal liability under IPC.

O R D E R

The first accused in C.C.No.19/2008 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattappana, is the revision petitioner herein. The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner, along with the second accused, for the commission of offences under Sections 324 , 326 & 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC ’), and imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years, and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 326 , and rigorous imprisonment for one year each under & 506(ii) . In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the second accused. The finding of the learned Magistrate in respect of the commission of offence under Section 506 (ii) was also, set aside by the Appellate Court. Thereafter, the petitioner was awarded the revised sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 324 , and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under . The aforesaid judgment of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thodupuzha, in Crl.A.No.92/2015 is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the issue in this case has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the injured persons, and that PW1 and PW2, who are the persons aggrieved by the offence committed by the revision petitioner, had sworn affidavits stating that the revision petitioner has to be acquitted since the issue has been amicably settled between them. The above affidavits of PW1 and PW2 are brought on record in this revision petition.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that PW1 and PW2 also gave statements to the Investigating Officer to the effect that the issue has been amicably settled with the revision petitioner, and hence they are not at all interested in the enforcement of the sentence awarded by the Appellate Court upon the revision petitioner.

5. On going through the case records, it is seen that a private issue between the revision petitioner and PW1 and PW2 was the root cause of the crime. Now that it is submitted that the aforesaid issue has been amicably settled between the parties, and the injured persons want the revision petitioner to be acquitted of the offences charged against him. Having regard to the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the conviction and sentence awarded by the Appellate Court are liable to be set aside in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court.

In the result, the petition stands allowed as follows:

(i) The judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thodupuzha, in Crl.A.No.92/2015, convicting the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 324 & 326 IPC , and sentencing him for the aforesaid offences, is hereby set aside.

(ii) The petitioner/accused is acquitted of the aforesaid offences.

(iii) The bail bond executed by the petitioner/accused stands canceled and he is set at liberty.

(Sd/-)