& Anr Vs. State of U.P.  Insc 988 (28 September 2007)
Thakker & Altamas Kabir
APPEAL NO. 1302 2007 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 3799 OF
2006 C.K. THAKKER, J.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal
at Nainital on March 24, 2006 in Criminal Revision No. 627 of 2001.
said order, the High Court dismissed the Revision and confirmed the order of
conviction and sentence passed by the IInd Assistant Session Judge, Roorkee on January 28, 1992 and confirmed by the District and
Session Judge, Haridwar on June 9, 1992.
Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that according to the
prosecution, on May 7,
1989 at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning, one Mahmood Hassan was returning to
his house after offering a prayer (namaz). He met Zahoor, Khursheed, Naseem and
Islam who assaulted him. When Smt. Kulsoom @ Bhoori, wife of Mahmood Hassan
attempted to save her husband, she was also assaulted. Injuries were sustained
by both of them. The incident was witnessed by Islam, Waseel Ahmed and others.
A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Gufran Ali, son of Mahmood Hassan
on the same day at Jhabreda Police Station. The injured Mahmood Hassan and his
wife Smt. Kulsoom were medically examined at Civil Hospital, Roorkee. The Doctor opined that
all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. After completion of
police investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons
and charge was framed for offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
trial Court, vide its judgment and order dated January 28, 1992, convicted Khursheed
and Islam (Accused Nos. 2 and 4) for offences punishable under Section 325 read
with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and also to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 read
with Section 34 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred
an appeal in the Sessions Court, Haridwar. The learned Sessions Judge upheld the
conviction of the accused but reduced sentence from one year to six months for
offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC with fine of
Rs.500/- each and from six months to three months for offence punishable under
Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The challenge to the said conviction and
sentence was unsuccessful and the High Court, as stated above, confirmed the
order of conviction and sentence passed by the lower appellate Court.
When the matter was placed before the learned Chamber Judge of this Court, a
statement was made that the parties had settled the matter and since the
offences were compoundable, compromise could be recorded. A Deed of Compromise
was also placed on record. But, since there was no affidavit filed in support
thereof, the learned Chamber Judge permitted the appellants to file 'regular
compromise petition'. The matter was, therefore, adjourned.
Again, the matter appeared on board on August 4, 2006 when the following order was
Memorandum of Compromise has been filed before this Court which in effect, is a
prayer for compounding the offence. The same has been signed by the complainant
as well as by one of the injured witnesses, the other having died.
notice to Gufran, the complainant. On account of old age of the lady namely Kulsoom,
we do not require her presence at this stage. The aforesaid Gufran may appear
in person or through his advocate.
notice on the application for condonation of delay also.
meantime, the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds
and sureties to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, till further orders".
have heard learned counsel for the parties.
was stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties, amicable
settlement has been arrived at and compounding may be allowed. It was further
submitted that both the offences for which the appellants were convicted are
compoundable. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Code') deals with Compounding of Offences. Sub-section (1)
of Section 320 of the Code reads thus:
Compounding of offences.(1) The offences punishable under the sections of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table
next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column
of that Table:-- Table .
offence of causing hurt punishable under Section 323 IPC falls under
sub-section (1) of Section 320 of the Code. It is compoundable at the instance
of the person to whom the hurt is caused.
of the Court is not necessary. Since the parties have compounded, the act of
compounding is in accordance with law.
Sub-section (2) of the said section provides for compounding of offences with
the permission of the Court. It reads thus:
The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) specified in the first two columns of the table next following may, with
the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is
pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that
offence of causing grievous hurt punishable under Section 325 IPC is covered by
sub- section (2) of Section 320 of the Code. It is thus clear that an offence
punishable under Section 325 IPC is also compounded with the permission of the
The parties have compounded the offences.
stated in the compromise deed, Gurfan Ahmad, complainant and his mother Kulsoom
@ Bhoori (injured) did not want any action against the appellants (accused).
parties are neighbours, their houses are situated adjacent to each other and
they have been living peacefully for last many years and there is no dispute
among them. It is further stated that to continue sweet relationship and
harmony, complainant side does not want to take any action against the accused.
A prayer is, therefore, made to accept the compromise.
the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and considering the Deed of
Compromise and having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion,
ends of justice would be met if we grant necessary permission for compounding
an offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC as required by
sub-section (2) of Section 320 of the Code.
offence punishable under Section 323 IPC has already been compounded by the
Sub-section (8) of Section 320 states that the composition of offence under the
section shall have an effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the offence
has been compounded. The resultant effect of compounding of offences would be
that the accused should be acquitted. In other words, once the offences have
been compounded and the requisite permission is granted by the Court, the
accused must be acquitted.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly
of offence is permitted and the appellants are ordered to be acquitted.