Manoj & ANR. Vs.
State of M.P.  INSC 1639 (25 September 2008)
REPORTABLE IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1530
OF 2008 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1681 of 2008] Manoj & Anr. .....
Appellants Versus State of Madhya Pradesh ..... Respondent
and Bijendra Singh - two brothers have filed this appeal against the judgment
and order dated 11.12.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 631/2000 by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior whereby and whereunder 2 the
conviction of Manoj-appellant No. 1 herein recorded by Special Judge (NDPS) and
Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 161/99 under Section
307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short `IPC'] has been
altered to Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3
years, whereas conviction of Bijendra Singh-appellant No. 2 herein (as also
accused No.2-Ram Avtar) from Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC has been
converted to Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Appellant No. 2 is sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, whereas Ram Avatar has been
ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The conviction of
appellant No. 1 under Section 25 (1B) (a) read with Section 3 of the Arms Act
has been set aside.
stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 23.01.1999 at about 10:00
a.m. complainant Bahadur Singh (P.W. 4) along with Rakesh (P.W. 2) and Ram
Varan Singh (P.W. 9) (both hostile witnesses) was excavating sand on the bank
of river Devipura near village Duhia Chak. Appellant 3 No. 2 armed with 12
bore gun, his brother Appellant No. 1 armed with katta (country made fire-arm)
and Ram Avatar- accused holding pharsa in his hand came to the spot and started
abusing the complainant (P.W. 4). P.W. 4 told them that he was extracting sand
from government land. It was alleged that Ram Avatar-accused gave pharsa blow
which caused injury to the calf-ankle of complainant's left leg, back and knee.
Appellant No. 2 fired gun shot which hit on the wrist of right hand of the
complainant whereas Appellant No. 1 fired pellets from katta which hit the head
and forehead of Bahadur Singh, who as a result of receiving the injuries fell
on the ground. All the three accused persons thereafter ran away from the scene
Bahadur Singh lodged First Information Report (Exhibit - P5) on the same day at
Police Station, Bijoli. He was sent to the hospital for medical examination.
Investigation of the case was conducted by Assistant Sub-Inspector Babu Ram
Sharma (P.W. 10) on the spot. During investigation, he seized one brass
cartridge and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Sub-Inspector Ashok
Tiwari (P.W. 14) arrested 4 Appellant No. 1 on 08.02.1999 and recorded his
disclosure statement (Exhibit - P11). Pursuant thereto, `Katta' which was being
used by him at the time of occurrence of the offence, was produced from a
hidden place at the back of `kothi' constructed in the field of Majboot Singh
Jaat. Ram Avatar was arrested on 08.02.1999 and on his statement; pharsa was
recovered from the field of Majboot Singh Jaat. Pistol allegedly used by
Appellant No. 2 was examined by Santosh Singh (P.W. 11) in D.R.P. Line,
Gwalior, who certified that the said pistol was in running condition as per his
Report (Exhibit- P18).
Brij Mohan Sharma,
Sub-Divisional Magistrate (P.W. 12) produced on record permission (Exhibit
-P19) to prosecute the accused under the Arms Act. On receipt of Injury Report
and X-Ray Report prepared by Dr. Purshottam Jaju (P.W. 5) and Dr. Avinash Naidu
(P.W. 6) and completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against
the above said three accused in the Court of First Class Magistrate. The
Magistrate committed the trial of the case to the learned Sessions Judge. The
learned Sessions Judge assigned the trial of the case to the Special Judge
(NDPS) -cum- Additional 5 Sessions Judge, Gwalior. The accused persons were
charge sheeted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 25(1B) (a)
and Section 3 of the Arms Act. The accused denied charges and claim to be
the trial, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. The trial court, on
analysis of the entire evidence on record, convicted all the three accused for
offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. In addition,
Appellant No. 1 was convicted under Section 25 (1B) (a) read with Section 3 of
the Arms Act. Appellant No. 1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 307 IPC and one
year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 25
(1B) (a) read with Section 3 of the Arms Act.
In default of payment
of fine, he has been ordered to suffer three months' imprisonment. Appellant
No. 2 and Ram Avatar (Accused Nos. 3 and 2) were sentenced to suffer five
years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offence under
Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, both the
accused persons were 6 ordered to six months' imprisonment. Out of the fine
amount, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has been ordered to be paid to the complainant -
No. 1 and Appellant No. 2 preferred Criminal appeal No. 631/2000 whereas Ram
Avatar filed Criminal Appeal No. 650/2000 before the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior. The learned Single Judge of the High Court partly
allowed the appeals and altered the conviction from under Section 307 IPC to
Section 324 IPC and imposed the aforesaid sentence upon them. The High Court
acquitted Appellant No. 1 in respect of the offence under the Arms Act.
Appellant No. 1 and his brother Appellant No. 2 have filed this appeal by way
of special leave. It appears that no appeal has been filed by Ram
Avatar-accused against the judgment and order of the High Court.
the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 10.03.2008, it was
submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the parties had agreed
to compound the 7 offence and in that view of the matter, notice was issued to
the respondent-State and also to Bahadur Singh - complainant.
appellants have filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4257/2008 praying for
permission to compound the offence with the complainant. They have inter alia
stated that they and complainant - P.W. 4 are neighbours and are residing in
the same village. After the alleged incident, the complainant and the
appellants have come into close relations just like family members and they
want to reside peacefully in future without any kind of disruption in their
their close relations amongst themselves, one village panchayat was held in the
village in which the complainant has agreed to compound the offence with the
appellants as now he has no grievance against the appellants.
Bahadur Singh has filed an affidavit (Annexure-P3) dated 16.01.2008. The
complainant has stated in the said affidavit that on his complaint a case was
registered against the appellants Manoj, Bijendra Singh and accused Ram Avatar
which has resulted in the conviction of the accused persons. He stated that
Manoj and Bijendra 8 Singh are residents of his village and the village people
have got their disputes compromised by holding a village panchayat and now they
would desire to live peacefully and that at present no dispute exists between
Shri Jai Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri R.P. Gupta, learned
senior counsel for respondent-State and Shri Pramod Kumar Yadav for
complainant-Bahadur Singh. The learned counsel for the complainant stated
before us that the complainant has compromised the case with the appellants and
in that view of the matter their appeal may be accepted.
have examined the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
[for short `the Cr.P.C.'] which deals with compounding of offences. Section
320(1) of the Cr. P.C. provides that the offences punishable under the Sections
of Indian Penal Code 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. Under sub- Section (2) of Section 320, offences punishable under
the Sections of the Indian Penal Code, specified in the first two 9 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 Table. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous
weapons or means by the accused constitutes an offence under Section 324 IPC
which can be compounded by person to whom hurt is caused with the permission of
the Court in terms of sub-Section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
requires to be noticed that Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2005 [Act No.25/2005]
amended Section 320 of the Code and in the Table under sub-Section (2) (a) the
words "voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means" in
column 1 and the entries relating thereto in columns 2 and 3 has been omitted.
But the said amendment by Act No. 25 of 2005 has not yet been brought into
force. Therefore, the offence under 324 is still compoundable with the
permission of the Court.
appellants and the complainant are residents of the same village and with the
intervention of the village panchayat the complainant has compounded the
offence with the appellants and now he has no grievance against them. The 10
appellants and the complainant have categorically stated in their affidavits
filed before us that after the incident they have developed family relations
and they wish to reside peacefully in the village in future without any kind of
disruption in their future lives.
are satisfied that the complainant has voluntarily desired to compound the
offence with the appellants for sufficient and genuine reasons stated in their
respective affidavits and such compounding is legal and valid. We allow the
parties to compound the offence under Section 324 IPC.
Petition No. 4257/2008 stands, accordingly, allowed. In view of the
compounding, the conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellants, who are
in jail undergoing sentence, shall be set free forthwith, if not required in
any other case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(R. V. Raveendran)
(Lokeshwar Singh Panta)