9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respectively. Further, it was pointed out that they are poor labourers married and have children. Further, it was also pointed out that the injuries were caused due to sudden provocation, and were not pre-meditated. After hearing the accused and the prosecution, the trial Court, on sentence, passed the following order: Heard both the parties. On the basis of the above arguments, perused the case file. Though no criminal record has been produced by the Prosecution against the accused, nor has any arguments about the habitual criminal, however, from the evidence came on file, this fact has been established that accused Banwari and Shambhu had been taking the goods on credit from the complainant Abdul Rashid, also on the day of incident, had come to take goods on credit and due to arrears of money, he had refused to give the goods on credit. Then they again came back at the place of incident. Thereafter about 10 minutes both came with iron rod and a strip of iron like sword in a planned manner, and both together made a murderous attack on Abdul Rashid. By causing fatal injury on the head after fracture of piece of bone of head of Abdul Rashid, went inside the brain. The doctor pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut that he did not wish to pursue the appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted before the High Court that since the parties had buried the differences and since offence committed was against an individual , rather than against the State , no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the accused persons behind the bars, and hence, it was requested that the case be compounded and the appeal be allowed. 4. We have examined the reasons stated by the High Court for acceding to that request. The High Court examined the scope of Sections 482 and 320 CrPC and expressed the view that there are certain similarities and differences between compounding and quashing a case on the basis of compromise and hence, quashing of a criminal proceeding upon a compromise is well within the discretionary power of the Court. It also opined that while the power under Section 320 CrPC is cribbed, cabined and confined, the power under Section 482 CrPC is vast, unparallel and paramount. On facts the High Court opined that it was a case where the fight between the parties had occurred on the spur and heat of the moment and the assault was more a crime against an individual , rathe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, the High Court was justified in compounding the offence and acquitting the accused persons. 8. We may point out that in Gian Singh (supra), this Court has held that quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and the victim is not the same thing as compounding of offences. This Court also held that the power of compounding of offences conferred on a Court under Section 320 CrPC is materially different from the power conferred under Section 482 for quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 CrPC and the Court is guided solely and squarely thereby, while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal proceeding or criminal complaint under Section 482 CrPC is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. 9. The Court also opined that the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was categorically held that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not compoundable in terms of Section 320(9) CrPC and that compounding of such an offence was out of question. Further, taking note of the fact that the incident had occurred in the year 1991 and it was almost 20 years since then, and that the accused persons were agriculturists by occupation and had no previous criminal background and there had been reconciliation among the parties, the Court held that the ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence awarded to the accused be reduced to the period already undergone. 12. We find, in this case, such a situation does not arise. In the instant case, the incident had occurred on 30.10.2008. The trial Court held that the accused persons, with common intention, went to the shop of the injured Abdul Rashid on that day armed with iron rod and a strip of iron and, in furtherance of their common intention, had caused serious injuries on the body of Abdul Rashid, of which injury number 4 was on his head, which was of a serious nature. 13. Dr. Rakesh Sharma, PW5, had stated that out of the injuries caused to Abdul Rashid, injury no. 4 was an injury on the head ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
