Jharkhand High Court
Teklal Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 June, 2022
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1127 of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1127 of 2003
(Against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 10th July
2003, passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in S.T.
No.139 of 2001 / 16 of 2002, arising out of Birni P.S. Case No.29 of 2000,
Giridih Jharkhand)
1. Teklal Sao
2. Baleshwar Sao
3. Jagarnath Sao ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate . For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastav, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate 12/16.06.2022 Learned defence counsel Mr. Yogesh Modi is appearing on behalf of the appellants. Learned APP Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava is appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay is present on behalf of the informant.
2. At the outset, it has been jointly submitted on behalf of the parties that the appellant No.1 Jibalal Sao has expired during the pendency of this appeal on 05.12.2015 and to that effect, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating that appellant No.1 Jibalal Sao had died and the death certificate has been given by the Pardhan of Gram Panchyat, Kesodih, District - Giridih, Jharkhand and the photocopy of the said death certificate is the part of the counter affidavit, which is available on record. Further, it has also been stated in the counter affidavit that rest of the appellants namely Teklal Sao, Baleshwar Sao and Jagarnath Sao are alive and the notices have been duly served to them. Learned defence counsel Mr. Yogesh Modi appearing on behalf of the appellants also submitted that appellant No.1 Jibalal Sao has expired and the rest of three appellants are alive and it has further been submitted on behalf of the parties that since no close relative or kith and kin of the deceased appellant Jibalal Sao has come forward to continue with this appeal, let this appeal with respect to the deceased appellant 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1127 of 2003 Jibalal Sao be abated.
3. Accordingly, this appeal is abated with respect to the deceased appellant Jibalal Sao, and the rest of the appellants are renumbered in the cause title of memo of appeal.
4. Now this appeal will be heard for the rest of the appellants namely Teklal Sao, Baleshwar Sao and Jagarnath Sao as appellants no.1, 2 and 3 only.
5. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 10th July 2003, passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in S.T. No.139 of 2001 / 16 of 2002, arising out of Birni P.S. Case No.29 of 2000, whereby and where under appellant No.1 Teklal Sao along with the deceased appellant Jibalal Sao were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years R.I. whereas appellant No.2 Baleshwar Sao was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and the appellant No.3 Jagarnath Sao was released on executing bond of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each for maintaining peace and good behaviour for the period of two years.
6. The prosecution case in nut shell was that on 14th April 2000, the informant and her husband were repairing the roof of house. The informant herself was giving earthen tiles to her husband PW - 2, who was on roof. It is alleged that accused persons armed with Tangi and lathi came there and began to get the roof materials fallen and when the informant protested, they caught her hairs and got her fallen and thereafter accused Jibalal Sao (since dead) gave a Tangi blow on her head by causing bleeding, by which, she began to move restlessly. She further alleged that accused Jibalal Sao also gave Tangi blow on her head, accused Jagarnath Sao and Baleshwar Sao gave lathi blow on her left arm, and when her husband came down from roof, accused Teklal Sao gave a tangi blow on his head and others assaulted him on his whole body, by which, he fell down and became senseless. It has further alleged that Jagarnath Sao and 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1127 of 2003 Teklal Sao gave blows by their leg on the informant womb, which, caused her pregnancy of three months miscarriage. The cause of occurrence was stated in FIR was that the accused claimed land measuring one hath land encroached in her house by the informant party.
7. The fardbayan of informant was recorded by ASI M.I. beg of Birni Police station on 14.04.2000 at 20 hours, and case was registered vide Birni P.S. Case No.29 of 2000 u/s 448, 342, 427, 323, 324, 307, 313, 316/34 of IPC against the accused persons. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the charges were framed on 17.01.2002 against the accused perons Jibalal Sao, Teklal Sao, Baleshwar Sao, Jagarnath Sao and Karmi Devi for the offence punishable under Section 307/34, 342/34, 448/34 of IPC and the charge u/s 313, 316 of IPC against the accused Jagarnath Sao and Teklal Sao. The charges were explained to the accused persons and the accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried and the learned trial court after conducting the trail passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.
8. In support of prosecution case, the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses PW - 1 Jirwa Devi, the informant in this case, PW - 2 Mohan Sao, PW - 3 Puran Mandal, PW - 4 Amiya Devi, PW - 5 Dr. Ashok Kumar, PW - 6 Vijay Kumar Sinha, a formal witness, who proved the Fardbayan. Apart from that, the prosecution also exhibited the following documents, which are Ext-1 and Ext 1/1, the Injury report of injured PW - 1 and PW - 2, Ext. 2 is Fardbayan. No witness has been examined on behalf of the defence and after closure of the evidence, statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. where they claimed themselves to be innocent.
9. Heard learned defence counsel Mr. Yogesh Modi appearing on behalf of the appellants, learned APP Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel Mr. P.K. 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1127 of 2003 Mukhopadhyay appearing on behalf of the informant.
10. Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that he does not argue this case on merit in view of the fact that the compromise between both the parties has taken place and a joint compromise petition has been filed between the parties supported by Jirwa Devi @ Jirva Devi, who is the informant in the present case, being I.A. No.4703 of 2022, in which, it has been stated that both the parties do not want to proceed further in this case and they have settled their disputes outside the Court and jointly praying that let this appeal be allowed to be compounded and the appellants be acquitted from the offences, under which, they have been convicted. It has been jointly submitted that the informant Jirwa Devi PW - 1 is the own aunt of appellant No.2 and the deceased appellant Jibalal Sao and in the recent past, the informant Jirwa Devi has settled their disputes with appellants outside the Court and hence they come forward to file this interlocutory application as joint compromise petition with the surviving appellants Teklal Sao, Baleshwar Sao and Jargarnath Sao, who are kith and kin and due to the intervention of the well-wishers and close relatives of the parties, the parties have settled their disputes once and for all and as such, the informant does not want to proceed with the case against the appellants.
11. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants and the informant have relied upon the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard that even if the offence is not compoundable within the meaning of section 320 of the Cr.P.C. , but taking into consideration that it is a dispute of personal nature between the parties and they have settled their disputes once and for all and they wanted to live peacefully and harmoniously in life, the Court may consider to allow the matter to be compounded for the ends of justice. The Rulings relied upon are as follows:-
"1. In the case of Narinder Singh & Others Vs. State of Panjab and Anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466.
2. in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. Reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1127 of 2003
3. in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582."
12. Relying upon the aforesaid Rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Courts, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the informant submitted that a compromise has taken place without any coercion and pressure from any corner and the parties have entered into a compromise and they have settled their disputes once and for all. It has also been pointed out that the conviction under Section 325 of IPC is compoundable in nature with respect to the appellant No.1 and the conviction of appellants Nos.2 & 3 for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC, which is not compoundable in nature, but the nature of offence is by and large similar to the offence punishable under section 325 of IPC and further taking into consideration that it was the personal dispute between the parties and for the ends of justice, it is urged on behalf of the both the parties jointly that let this appeal be allowed as compounded.
13. Learned APP on the other hand appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions without controverting the facts that a compromise has taken place between both the parties and in this view of the matter, suitable order may be passed.
14. It is found that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012)10 SCC 303 laid down following principles:
"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor........"
59.xxx xxx xxx
60.xxx xxx xxx "61. ...the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1127 of 2003 power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
These principles are subsequently reiterated in a number of cases. It is now well settled that the offences which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by a criminal Court under the section 320 of the Cr.P.C. Nevertheless there is a scope of compounding the offences by invoking inherent powers of the High Court vested in it under section 482 of Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1127 of 2003 court and/or to secure the ends of justice by taking into consideration the circumstances surrounding the incident, the manner and mode under which the compromise has been arrived at between the parties , and further due consideration to the nature and seriousness of the offence, in addition to the conduct of the accused, before and after the incident. But such power is to be exercised very carefully, diligently and cautiously as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, as follows :
"22. Thus, we find that in certain circumstances, this Court has approved the quashing of proceedings under Section 307 IPC whereas in some other cases, it is held that as the offence is of serious nature such proceedings cannot be quashed. Though in each of the aforesaid cases the view taken by this Court may be justified on its own facts, at the same time this Court owes an explanation as to why two different approaches are adopted in various cases. The law declared by this Court in the form of judgments becomes binding precedent for the High Courts and the subordinate courts, to follow under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Stare decisis is the fundamental principle of judicial decision-making which requires "certainty" too in law so that in a given set of facts the course of action which law shall take is discernible and predictable. Unless that is achieved, the very doctrine of stare decisis will lose its significance. The related objective of the doctrine of stare decisis is to put a curb on the personal preferences and priors of individual Judges. In a way, it achieves equality of treatment as well, inasmuch as two different persons faced with similar circumstances would be given identical treatment at the hands of law. It has, therefore, support from the human sense of justice as well. The force of precedent in the law is heightened, in the words of Karl Llewellyn, by "that curious, almost universal sense of justice which urges that all men are to be treated alike in like circumstances".
23. As there is a close relation between equality and justice, it should be clearly discernible as to how the two prosecutions under Section 307 IPC are different in nature and therefore are given different treatment. With this ideal objective in mind, we are proceeding to discuss the subject at length. It is for this reason we deem it appropriate to lay down some distinct, definite and clear guidelines which can be kept in mind by the High Courts to take a view as to under what circumstances it should accept the settlement between the parties and quash the proceedings and under what circumstances it should refrain from doing so. We make it clear that though there would be a general discussion in this behalf as well, the matter is examined in the context of the offences under Section 307 IPC."
8 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1127 of 2003
24. xxx xxx xxx
25. xxx xxx xxx
26. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as well. Therefore, only because FIR/charge-sheet incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC would not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under Section 482 of the Code and refuse to accept the settlement between the parties. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not, the High Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely, whether injuries are caused at the vital/delicate parts of the body) and the nature of weapons used, etc. On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement between the parties. On the other hand, on the basis of prima facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the High Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section 307 IPC were unnecessarily included in the charge-sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties.
In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, the Hon'ble Supreme court has observed as under:
"6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law."
15. Having taking into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, it is found that the informant Jirwa Devi has come forward to enter into the compromise by virtue of I.A. No.4703 of 2022 between both the parties including surviving three appellants and the informant, in order to ensure the substantive and responsible justice, this court finds just and proper where the 9 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1127 of 2003 compromise between the parties is to be allowed and in view of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as held in the case of Narinder Singh & Others Vs. State of Panjab and Anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, it is found that I.A. No.4703 of 2022, which is a joint compromise petition that both the parties wanted to lead peaceful life and the informant categorically stated that she does not want to proceed with this case as she does not want to pursue this case further.
16. Therefore in the interest of justice, the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.07.2003 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in S.T. No.139 of 2001 / 16 of 2002, arising out of Birni P.S. Case No.29 of 2000 against these three appellants are set aside and the appeal is allowed to be compounded and the appellants, namely, Teklal Sao, Baleshwar Sao and Jagarnath Sao are acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
17. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the I.A. 4703 of 2022 is also disposed of accordingly.
18. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith to the concerned court below.
(Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated the 16.06.2022/NAFR R.Kumar/-