IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.08.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

Crl.A.No.493 of 2009

and

Crl.MP.No.10688 of 2019

Sedhu

...Appellant /Single Accused

Vs

State by:

The Inspector of Police,

Palladam Police Station,

Palladam,

Tirupur District

(Crime No.146/2008)

...Respondent/Complainant

Prayer:- This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of

Cr.P.C, against the judgement of conviction dated 24.07.2009

made in S.C.No.318 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional

District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Coimbatore at

Tirupur and acquit him fromm the offence.

For Appellant :Mr.A.Saravanan

For Respondent :Mr.K.Prabakar,

Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

1.This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused against

the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.07.2009 made

in S.C.No.318 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional

District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Coimbatore at

Tirupur and finding the appellant/accused guilty for the

offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine amount of

Rs.1000/- with a default sentence of 3 months rigorous

imprisonment.

2.When the appeal is taken up for hearing today, the learned

counsel for the appellant stated that the de facto-complainant

and the appellant/accused have compromised the matter and that

the de facto-complainant has also condoned the act of the

appellant/accused and they have also filed a petition, seeking

to compound the offence. In view of the compromise, the

appellant has also agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees One Lakhs only) as compensation in respect of the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

injuries suffered by the complainant in the incident. He would

further submit that during the time of investigation the

petitioner had suffered incarceration for about 40 days.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the

appellant/accused has been charged for offence under Section

342 and 307 of IPC and on conclusion of the trial, the learned

Trial Judge found him guilty for offecnes under Section 324 of

IPC and sentenced him to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment.

He would further submit that the offence under Section 324 of

IPC is not compoundable as per the statute.

4.The De facto-complainant/PW1 is the injured victim and he is

present before this Court and has filed an affidavit wherein he

had stated that he had reconciled with the appellant and that

he is willing to compound the offence and that he has also

condoned the act of the appellant/accused.

5. Now, in this case since the parties have reconciled and

compromised the matter between themselves, without delving deep

into the facts of this case which in the opinion of this Court

may not be necessary to be discussed in view of the compromise,

it is seen that immediately after the incident the appellant

himself had taken the victim to the hospital for treatment.

Further, it is also the evidence that they were having close

acquaintance with each other prior to the occurrence.

6.The trial Court, had found the appellant guilty for the

offence under section 324 IPC and convicted him to undergo

sentence as stated above. The offence under which the appellant

has been convicted and sentenced under section 324 IPC is a

non-compoundable offence. As per section 320 (9) Cr.P.C, non-

compoundable offences falling outside the two tables in under

section 320 IPC cannot be compounded even with the permission

of the Court. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions

reported in (2008) 15 SCC 667 [Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Madya

Pradesh], (2013) 11 SCC 511 [ Mukesh Kumar and others Vs. State

of Rajasthan] and (2015) 11 SCC 137 [ Nanda Gopalan Vs. State

of Kerala] while holding that it is impermissible to permit for

compounding in non-com