2008 (8) TMI 949 - SC - Indian Laws

Attack with deadly weapons - Compounding of offences - matter has been compounded by compromise between the parties - Convicted for offences punishable u/s 147 and 324 IPC - HELD THAT - The compounding of an offence signifies that the person against whom an offence has been committed has received some gratification to an act as an inducement for his abstaining from proceeding further with the case 2007 (12) TMI 444 - SUPREME COURT . Section 320 deals with offences which are compoundable, either by the parties without the leave of the Court or by the parties but only with the leave of the Court. It is clear that offences not referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 320 and not included in the Table are not compoundable. Similarly, offences punishable under laws other than the Indian Penal Code also cannot be compounded. It is no doubt true as stated by the ld counsel for the appellants even at the time of preliminary hearing of this matter that by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 25 of 2005) the above entry has been deleted. In other words, an offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means punishable u/s 324, IPC is no more compoundable. The Amendment Act of 2005 came into force from June 23, 2006. According to the prosecution, the appellants had committed the offence on June 15, 1995. Hence, in our opinion, Act 25 of 2005 has no application to the facts of the case. We, therefore, see no ground to refuse permission as sought by the parties who have compromised the offence which was compoundable under the Code as it stood in 1995. If it is so, compounding can be permitted and accused (appellants) can be acquitted. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by holding that since the matter has been compounded by compromise between the parties and there is no illegality therein, such compounding can be permitted by the Court. The appellants are, hence, entitled to acquittal. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by all Courts is hereby set aside.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against conviction and sentence, Compounding of offences, Interpretation of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Effect of Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 on compoundable offences.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal against an order of conviction and sentence issued by various lower courts. The case pertains to an incident where the accused persons were charged under Sections 147 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for attacking and causing injuries to an individual. The lower courts convicted and sentenced some of the accused while others were released on admonition due to their young age. The convicted accused then appealed against the order, which was subsequently upheld by the Sessions Judge and the High Court of Assam.

The key contention in the appeal was the compounding of the offences under Sections 147 and 324 of the IPC. The parties had entered into a settlement and sought to compound the offences by invoking Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellants presented a compromise deed signed by all parties, including the injured individual, expressing their voluntary consent for the settlement.

The judgment delves into the legal principles surrounding the compounding of offences. It highlights that while certain serious offences are not permissible for compromise, some less serious offences can be settled through a compromise between the parties involved. The court referred to Section 320 of the Code, which delineates compoundable offences and the procedure for compounding with or without the court's leave.

A crucial aspect addressed in the judgment is the impact of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 on the compoundability of certain offences. The court noted that the Amendment Act removed the compoundability of the offence under Section 324 of the IPC, making it non-compoundable. However, since the offence in question occurred before the Amendment Act came into force, the court held that the older provisions would apply, allowing for the compounding of the offence as it was compoundable at the time of the incident.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of conviction and sentence by the lower courts, and acquitted the appellants based on the compromise reached between the parties. The judgment emphasized the importance of upholding settlements in cases where the law permits the compounding of offences, ensuring a fair and just resolution for all parties involved.