9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Court is empowered to permit composition of the offences under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 by invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. Whether in cases where the statute provides for the minimum sentence, the Court would still be justified in granting composition of the offence. Detailed Analysis: 1. Empowerment of the Court to Permit Composition of Offences: The primary issue was whether the Court could permit the composition of offences under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, despite the absence of express provisions for such composition in these Acts. The Court noted that Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which pertains to the compounding of offences, does not cover offences under the Civil Rights Act and the Atrocities Act, nor do these Acts themselves contain express provisions for compounding. The Court emphasized that while the law is silent on the point of compromise, justice should not remain silent if a compromise can bring about peace and harmony. The Court acknowledged that while grave offences like murder and rape are rightly non-compoundable, offences that occur spontaneously and are of a milder nature could be considered for composition if the aggrieved party voluntarily agrees. The Court concluded that it is empowered to permit composition of such offences under its inherent powers, provided the compromise is genuine, voluntary, and serves the interest of justice and societal harmony. 2. Justification of Granting Composition Despite Minimum Sentence Provisions: The second issue addressed whether the Court could grant composition in cases where the statute prescribes a minimum sentence. The Court noted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Atrocities Act prescribe minimum sentences for certain offences. However, the Court argued that the existence of a minimum sentence should not automatically preclude the possibility of composition if the aggrieved party is willing to settle the matter. The Court reasoned that allowing such compromises could serve the broader objectives of the Acts, such as rehabilitation and promoting social harmony. The Court dismissed the argument that permitting composition would be against public policy, stating that a genuine and voluntary compromise would, in fact, support public policy by fostering reconciliation and reducing caste-based conflicts. Conclusion: The Court accepted the compromise purshis submitted by the parties, noting that the compromise was voluntary, genuine, and aimed at restoring peace and harmony. The Court quashed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, acquitting the accused of all charges. The Court also emphasized the importance of ensuring that such compromises are not coerced and should be verified for their genuineness. The judgment highlighted the Court's role in promoting justice and societal harmony, even in the absence of express legal provisions for compounding certain offences. The decision underscored the Court's inherent powers to facilitate compromises that serve the interests of justice and social peace.
|
