Settlement between parties can influence the enforcement of a criminal conviction despite the non-compoundable nature of the offence.

ORDER

The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra and the Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode, in CC No.205 of 2001 and Crl.A.No.156 of 2004 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the commission of the offences under Sections 323 and 326 IPC , are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners physically assaulted the additional 2nd respondent by beating with firewood pieces at about 8.00 am on 27.11.2000 and inflicted grievous hurt upon that person. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners to Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine Rs.1,000/- each under Section 326 IPC . No separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 323 . Though the petitioners challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the appeal, concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction recorded and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioners have filed this revision petition.

3. During the course of proceedings in this revision, it was submitted that the issue has been amicably settled with the injured. Accordingly, the injured/PW1 was impleaded as the additional 2nd respondent in this revision petition. However, the additional 2nd respondent was reported to be no more. Accordingly, his wife and children were impleaded in the revision petition as additional respondents 3 to 7. The additional respondents 3 to 7 filed separate affidavits stating that the issue has been amicably settled with the petitioners, and that they have no subsisting grievances against the petitioners. Additional respondents 3 to 7 also stated that the conviction and sentence of the petitioners are to be set aside in view of the settlement of the issue with them.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. It is true that the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable. However, it is seen from the affidavits filed by additional respondents 3 to 7 that the issue involved in this case was purely private in nature, and that it has been sorted out between the parties amicably.

It is further revealed from the aforesaid affidavits that the aggrieved persons are having no subsisting grievance against the petitioners, and that they want to see that the petitioners are exonerated from the criminal liability alleged in this case. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that there is no need for proceeding further with the enforcement of the conviction and sentence of the petitioners.

In the result, the revision petition stands allowed as follows:-

(i) The concurrent verdicts of the courts below, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the commission of the offences under Sections 323 and 326 IPC , are hereby set aside.

(ii) The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the aforesaid offences.

(iii) Their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.