Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Unnikrishnan @ Kannan vs State Of Kerala on 30 June, 2016
Bench: S.A. Bobde, Ashok Bhushan
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 553 OF 2016
(Arising from SLP(Crl.) 4705 of 2016
(@ Crl.M.P.No. 8975/16)
UNNIKRISHNAN @ KANNAN AND .. APPELLANT(S)
ORS.
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. .. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellants were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 341 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “I.P.C.'). They were convicted Signature Not Verified and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR for one year under Section 324 read with Section Date: 2016.07.04 17:02:22 IST Reason:
34 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for two years 2 under Section 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
and a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 341 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 307 I.P.C.
4. The High Court has thereafter set aside the conviction under Section 307 I.P.C.; upheld the conviction under Sections 324 and 326 I.P.C. but reduced the sentence awarded to the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and also a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, each and further sentenced them to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under section 341 I.P.C. It is common ground that the disputes which arose from an incident which took place on 18.08.1996 have 3 been settled by the parties amicably and the settlement is also filed on record.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the settlement has been arrived at without any coercion and is genuine. Learned counsel for the parties have brought to our notice the decision of this Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. Reported in (2012) 12 SCC 302, wherein this Court observed in paragraph 58 as follows :
“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. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to 4 leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statues, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by pubic servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each 5 case will depend on its own fact and no hard-an-fast category can be prescribed.”
6. We find that the offences for which the appellants have been found guilty are not so serious that no settlement or compromise could be made without prejudicing the interest of the society. The disputes were purely personal between the parties and the parties have taken the initiative to settle the matter and heal the wounds. Thus, even though one of the offences is not compoundable. i.e. under section 326 I.P.C., we are of the opinion that incarceration will be exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the disputes are put to an end and peace is restored.
7. Hence, we set aside the order of the High Court imposing punishment to the appellants. The appellants are hereby acquitted of the charges, subject to payment of costs to the Legal Services Authority, Kerala in a sum of Rs. 6 50.000/- within a period of four weeks.
8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
.....................J. [ S.A. BOBDE ] ......................J. [ ASHOK BHUSHAN ] NEW DELHI, JUNE 30, 2016.
ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)......of 2016 CRLMP No. No.8975/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/10/2015 in CRLA No. 552/2003 passed by the High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam) UNNIKRISHNAN @ KANNAN AND ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. Respondent(s) (With appln. for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date :30/06/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Renjith B., Adv.
Mr. Babu T.K., Adv.
Mr. Arun Poomulli, Adv.
Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Zulfiker Ali P. S,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
[ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Indu Pokhriyal ]
A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master
[ Signed order is placed on the file ]