Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Shankar Yadav vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 July, 2017
Bench: S.A. Bobde, L. Nageswara Rao
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.982 OF 2017
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2161 of 2017)
SHANKAR YADAV AND ANR. ....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ....RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The question involved in the instant appeal is whether in view of the lapse of period of 19 years in litigation as well as the age and conduct of the appellants herein and the compromise entered into amongst the appellants, the complainant and the injured witnesses, the appellants can be permitted to compound the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the ‘IPC’) for which they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. The Signature Not Verified appellants have also filed a joint petition being Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2017.07.08 Crl.M.P. No.43053 of 2017 for grant of permission to 12:24:30 IST Reason:
compound the aforesaid offences.2
It is relevant to mention here that compounding of an offence is statutorily provided under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the 'Cr.P.C.'). If we look at the list of offences which are specified in the Table attached to Section 320 of the Code, it would be clear that there are basically two categories of offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'IPC') which have been made compoundable.
There is a category of offence for the compounding of which leave of the Court is required and there is another category of offences where for compounding the leave of the Court is not required. But all cases of compounding can take place at the instance of persons mentioned in the Third Column of the Table. If the said Table is perused, it will be clear that compounding can only be possible at the instance of the person who is either a complainant or who has been injured or is aggrieved.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the record, we find that in the instant case, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC is compoundable under Section 320(a) of Cr.P.C. by the person to whom the hurt is caused and the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC is compoundable under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C., with the permission of the Court by the person to whom hurt is 3 caused by means of dangerous weapons. It is noted that the father of the complainant viz., Prahlad, who was an injured witness PW-2 and whom the grievous injury in the form of fracture had been caused, has since been died, and therefore, as per the provisions contained under Section 320(4)(b) of the Cr.P.C., the complainant and his brothers have entered into the compromise on behalf of PW-2. Section 320(4)(b) of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows :
“(b) When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is dead, the legal representatives, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) of such person may, with the consent of the Court, compound such offence.” Since the complainant and his three injured brothers have entered into the compromise and the grievously injured witness PW-2, father of the complainant, is reported to be dead, we are of the view that the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC are compoundable and the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of compounding of those offences.
Under the Code, as originally enacted in 1973, an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) was made compoundable with the leave of the Court. It is true that the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC is 4 non-compoundable by virtue of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act No.25 of 2005) which came into force with effect from 23.06.2006.
According to the prosecution, the appellants had committed the offence on 12.01.1998. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, Act 25 of 2005 has no application to the facts of the instant case. Thus, this situation is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Sufan Laskar and others vs. State of Assam – (2008) 9 SCC 333, whereby this Court has held that the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC which was committed earlier to the said Amendment will be compounded.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reasons to refuse permission to the parties who have compromised the offences which were compoundable under the Code as it stood in 1998. If it is so, compounding can be permitted and the appellants- accused can be acquitted in view of Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C., which expressly enacts that where the composition of an offence under this section is recorded by the court, it shall have effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. We order accordingly.
For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the criminal miscellaneous petition for compounding of the offences as also the appeal, by holding that since the matter has 5 been compounded by compromise between the parties and there is no illegality therein, the appellants are entitled to acquittal. Hence, the orders of conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below are hereby set side and the appellants are ordered to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
....................J [S. A. BOBDE] ....................J [L. NAGESWARA RAO] NEW DELHI;
JULY 03, 2017.6
ITEM NO.47 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).2161/2017
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15-11-2016 IN CRR NO. 52/2007 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR) SHANKAR YADAV AND ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief and office report) Date : 03-07-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO For Petitioner(s) Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv.
Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Lave Kumar Shrama, Adv.
Mr. Sudhansu Tomar, Adv.
Mr. Anantha Narayana M.G., Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The criminal miscellaneous petition for compounding of the offences as also the appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. The orders of conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below are hereby set side and the appellants are ordered to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR-II) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed Order is placed on the file)