Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Baiju vs State Of Kerala on 1 February, 2016
Bench: Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Amitava Roy
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 97 OF 2016
(Arising out SLP (Crl.) 997 OF 2016 @ CRLMP No. 19152 of 2015)
BAIJU AND ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1) Delay condoned. 2) Leave granted. 3) It appears that the accused–appellants have been convicted,
inter alia, for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') which is not a compoundable offence.
4) The accused-appellants have preferred this appeal urging that in view of the settlement between the parties, this Court should, in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, compound the offence.
5) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the application for settlement made by the petitioners and supported by an affidavit filed on behalf of the victim. There is no doubt about the fact that the appellants and the victim have Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by amicably R.NATARAJAN Date: 2016.02.05 17:11:31 IST settled the dispute which would be evident from the Reason: affidavit filed on behalf of the victim through his counsel who has also confirmed this fact.
2
6) It is a fact that the offence under Section 326 of the IPC is non-compoundable. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the appellants cannot be convicted under Section 326 of the IPC because there is no consistent evidence that they used any dangerous weapon. Furthermore, it would be evident from the records that no weapon of assault was found or recovered from them. According to the medical evidence, it appears that the injuries can be caused by contact with a hard and rough object.
7) After analyzing the evidence and as it appears from the medical evidence on record, we are of the view that the appellants act comes under the purview of Section 325 of the IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt which is compoundable by the person to whom hurt is caused with the permission of the court. Learned counsel submitted that in the circumstances, the conviction of the appellants under Section 326 be converted into one under Section 325 of the IPC and the offence be compounded.
8) In view of that, after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that there is some substance in the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants which is based on the evidence produced before the court.
9) Accordingly, in the peculiar circumstances, we convert the conviction of the appellants from one under Section 326 of the IPC to the one under Section 325 of the IPC.
10) Since the offence under Section 325 of the IPC is compoundable by the person to whom hurt is caused with the permission of the court, the question is now whether in this case such permission 3 be allowed.
11) Having converted the appellants conviction to one under Section 325 of the IPC, we are inclined to follow the course adopted by this Court in granting permission to compound the offence as in Dasan vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2014) 12 SCC 666 and other decisions, in particular, Ram Shanker & Ors. vs. State of U.P., (1982) 3 SCC 388. Learned counsel submits that the victim who had suffered grievous injury have compromised the case and they wish to accord a quietus to their disputes. We, therefore, grant permission to compound the offence under Section 325 of the IPC to the appellants.
12) We have also taken note of the fact that the offence committed under Section 324 and 341 of the IPC was compoundable at the time of the incident which took place in the year 1995. Hence, the offences under Sections 324, 325/341 of the IPC are compounded. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellants are acquitted.
13) Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bond stands discharged. The appeal is disposed of.
14) As a consequence, all the pending applications also stand disposed of.
.......................... J.
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE) .......................... J.
(AMITAVA ROY) New Delhi;
February 01, 2016.
4
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.11 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Crl. A. No. 97/2016 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 997/2016 @ CRLMP No(s). No.19152/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01/07/2015 in CRRP No. 3031/2003 passed by the High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam) BAIJU AND ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA Respondent(s) CRLMP. 19152/2015(with c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 01/02/2016 This application was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr. Renjith B. Marar, Adv.
Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, AOR Mr. Anas Muhammed Shamnad R., Adv.
Ms. Anu Dixit Kaushik, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Zulfiker Ali P. S, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bond stands discharged. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(R.NATARAJAN) (SNEH LATA SHARMA)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)