The court established that offences under specific sections of IPC can be compounded, leading to acquittal if the parties reach a settlement.

O R D E R

This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.300 of 2003 of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad. He was charge sheeted in C.C. No.579 of 1998 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur for having committed the offences punishable under Sec.323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for short). The charge against the accused is that on 22.05.1998 at 5.00 p.m., the accused was mocking at girls who were passing through the public road at Padethi in Erimayur village. When PW5 asked about it he pushed him. Seeing this, PW1 intervened and the accused hit him with a granite stone on his head. He also pelted stones towards PW2 who also sustained injuries on the left knee. Alathur Police registered a crime and after completing investigation, Sub Inspector, Alathur laid charge before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur.

2. In pursuance of charge, prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Exts.P1 to P7. MO1 was admitted as material object. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. He did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months under Sec.323 IPC , rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sec.324 and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Sec.326 . Against that, he preferred Criminal Appeal No.300 of 2003, where the conviction under Sec.326 was set aside and the revision petitioner was convicted under Secs.323 and 325 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Being aggrieved by that, the accused preferred this revision petition.

3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the parties have settled the matter out of court and filed Criminal M.A. No.3767 of 2016.

4. I have perused the petition. After filing this revision petition, PW2, son of PW1 died. Revision petitioner Viswanathan and additional two and three respondents signed in it. Public Prosecutor also identified them. If both parties settled the matter, there is no hesitation in allowing the petition during the pendency of this revision petition. According to Sec.320(6) Cr.P.C. a High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section. The offence under Secs.323 and 325 IPC are compoundable with the permission of the Court. When the composition of offence under the section is made, it shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused under Sec.320(8) of the Code, with whom the offence has been compounded.

5. In the result, conviction and sentence passed by the trial court under Secs.323 and 325 IPC are set aside and the accused is acquitted and set at liberty.

Revision petition is disposed of as above.