Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
RAM LAL AND ANOTHER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/01/1999
BENCH:
K.T.Thomas, M.B.Shah
JUDGMENT:
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.