Compounding of non-compoundable offence – ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions- not permissible-SC
05 January,2021
One Senthil had a verbal altercation with Kumar (original accused no. 3) and Krishnan during a volleyball match and his friend Sathya came to his aid. Murali allegedly struck the victim on his head with a hockey stick and Rajavelu tried to kill him by giving a neck blow with a Veechu Aruval (sharp-edged object), which was fortunately blocked by the victim. In the process, the left hand of the victim and the thumb and finger of his right hand got severed. All five persons were arrested, and it further led to registration of Crime No. 531 of 2005 under Sections under Sections147,148,341,352, 323, 324, 307 and 34 of the IPC. The convict appellants challenged their convictions before two forums, both of which unanimously upheld their conviction. Their criminal revision petition before the High Court met with the same fate vide an order on January 11, 2018. However, through an application filed on 22.11.2019, they have sought to implead the injured victim and get their offences compounded based on mutual resolution and peaceful settlement between the parties. Supreme Court This Court, nevertheless, issued limited notice only on the quantum of sentence for each of them.The parties in this case have on the advice of their elders entered into an amicable settlement. There can be no doubt that Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 does not encapsulate Section 324 and 307 IPC under its list of compoundable offences. Given the unequivocal language of Section 320(9) CrPC which explicitly prohibits any compounding except as permitted under said provision, it would not be possible to compound the appellants’ offences. Learned Counsel for the victimapplicant has reiterated the same stance during oral hearings also.
It would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, it deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind.“The parties to the dispute have mutually buried their hatchet. There is no question of the settlement being as a result of any coercion or inducement. Considering that the parties are on friendly terms now and they inhabit the same society, this is a fit case for reduction of sentence”.The appeals are partly allowed and sentence of both the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
Murali & Rajavelu
VERSUS
State rep. by the Inspector of Police View Judgement
