Ram Lal
& ANR Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir [1999] IZNSC 8 (25 January 1999)
K.T.Thomas,
M.B.Shah DER Leave granted.
The
first appellant Ram Lal stands convicted of the offence under Section 326 of
the IPC and is undergoing a sentence of three Years. The second appellant has
been convicted of Sec. 324 of the IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for two
years. The parties have compromised and a petition for compounding has been
filed. We cannot accede to the request for compounding in regard to the offence
under Section 326 IPC as the same is a non-compoundable offence. Sri DD Thakur,
learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Y.Suresh
Babu vs.State of AP and another [1987(2) JT 361] and Mahesh Chand and another
vs. State of Rajasthan [1990 SCC (Suppl) 681] wherein non-compundable offences
were allowed to be compounded. In Y.Suresh Babu (Supra) it was specifically
observed that the said case "shall not be treated as a precedent". In
the latter case (Mahesh Chand) offence under Section 307 IPC was permitted to
be compounded with the following observations:
"We
gave our anxious consideration to the case and also the plea pur forward for
seeding permission to compound the offence. After examining the nature of the
case and circumstances under which the offence was committed it may be proper
that the trial court shall permit them to compound the offence." We are
unable to follow the said decision as a binding precedent Section 320 which
deals with "compounding of offences" provides two Tables therein, one
containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded by the person
mentioned in it and the other containing descriptions of offences which can be
compounded with the permission of the Court by the persons indicated therein.
Only such offences as are included in the said two Tables can be compounded and
none else. Sub-Section (9) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 imposes a legislative ban in the following terms:
"(9)
No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section." It is
apparent that when the decision in Mahesh Chand (Supra) was rendered attention
of the learned Judges was not drawn to the aforesaid legal prohibition. Nor was
attention of the learned Judges who rendered the decision in Y.Suresh Babu
(supra) drawn. Hence those were decisions rendered per incuriam. We hold that
an offence which law declares to be non-compoundable even with the permission
of the Court cannot be compounded at all. The offence under Section 326 IPC is,
admittedly, non-compoundable and hence we cannot accede to the request of the
learned counsel to permit the same to be compounded.
However,
considering the fact that parties have come to a settlement and the victims
have non grievance now and considering the further fact that first appellant
has already undergone a period of imprisonment of about six months, a lenient
view can be taken and the sentence can be reduced to the period which he had
already undergone. We order so and direct the jail authorities to set him at
liberty forthwith.
Regarding
the second appellant we permit the parties to compound the offence (section 324
IPC) in view of the joint application filed by the legal representatives of the
deceased complainant and the second appellant (vide his application No. Crl. M.P.No.
7648/98). In view of the aforesaid compounding of the offence under Section 324
of IPC we set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the second appellant
and he is acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
The
appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Back