Kerala High Court
E.K.Anandan vs A.E.Kumaran on 20 March, 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/9TH BHADRA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2614 of 2003 (C)
---------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO.35/2001 of ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KALPETTA DATED 20-03-2003
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 214/1994 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS,MANANTHAVADY DATED 29-03-2001
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/ 12TH ACCUSED/APPELLANT:
-----------------------------------------------
E.K.ANANDAN, KANNOTHU HOUSE,
THAVINJAL AMSOM, DESOM.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
SRI.S.SAJU
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/ STATE & RESPONDENT:
--------------------------------------------
1. A.E.KUMARAN, S/O. ITTATHY, KALAYIL VEEDU,
MANANTHAVADY TALUK,
THAVINJAL AMSOM, DESOM.
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.D. CHANDRASENAN.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 31-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
acd
P.D. RAJAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.2614 of 2003
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2016
ORDER
This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.35/2001 of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Kalpetta. The accused were charge sheeted in C.C. No.214/1994 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mananthavady u/s.143, 147, 148, 447, 452, 427, 324, 506(ii) r/w.149 IPC. The learned Magistrate acquitted A1 to A11 and convicted A12 u/s.452, 506(ii) IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each and fine of 1,000/- u/s.452 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s.506(ii) IPC. Against that, A12 filed the above Criminal Appeal before Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)Kalpetta, where the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, Crl.R.P. No.2614/2003 2 the accused preferred this revision petition.
2. The complainant's case is that in the year 1994, the accused 1 to 12 attempted to construct a 10 feet width pathway through the middle portion of his property. Against that, he filed O.S. No.34/1994 before Munsiff Court, Mananthavady and obtained a temporary injunction. Subsequently, on 12.2.1994 at 1 p.m., A12 trespassed into the varanda of PW1 and threatened that they will cut the pathway after killing the complainant and brandished a 'vakathi' towards him. When he evaded, his wife came there and she sustained injury. Even though the matter was reported to the Police, no action was taken by them. Hence, he approached the trial Court with the above complaint. The learned Magistrate framed a charge against the accused and examined PW1 to PW5 in support of the prosecution case. The complainant also produced Exts.P1 to P3 as documentary evidence. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while Crl.R.P. No.2614/2003 3 questioning him. He did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Magistrate convicted A12 and acquitted others.
3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the parties have settled the matter out of Court through the intervention of mediators and filed a compromise petition, Crl. M.A. No.5379/2016 and Crl.M.A. No.5397/2016 leave petition. Leave is granted for compounding the offence.
4. The offences compoundable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code are specifically mentioned in the table shown in Section 320 (1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. The offence u/s.452 and 506(ii) IPC is non-compoundable offence. Under Section 320(6) Cr.P.C., a High Court or Court of Session while exercising its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section. When composition is made in this case, the accused is entitled for acquittal u/s.320(8) Cr.P.C.
Crl.R.P. No.2614/2003 4
5. The general scheme for compounding an offence has been explained under Section 320 of the Code. But section 320(9) Cr.P.C says that no offences shall be compounded except as provided in the section. The offence under section 452 and 506(ii)IPC are non compoundable. Any compromise between the accused person and the victim of the crime should not exonerate the criminal liability of the accused. However, when an offence is essentially of a private nature and not a serious one, the code consider it as a compoundable offence and some offences are compoundable with the permission of the court. Most of the compoundable offences are non cognizable, but all non-cognizable offences are not compoundable. On the other hand, the offences which are compoundable with the permission of the court are cognizable offence, at the same time all cognizable offences are not compoundable. Therefore Section 320(9) Cr.P.C makes it clear that offences not provided by this section are not compoundable. Therefore, broadly speaking, Crl.R.P. No.2614/2003 5 offences other than those specified in Section 320(1) and (2) Cr.P.C cannot be compounded. According to the scheme of the section, all offences under special or local laws are non compoundable and the legislature has to make a clear indication in those laws as to what extent offences under such laws should be compounded.
6. Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108(SC)] held as follows:-
" Minor offences as under S.279 IPC, may be permitted to be compounded on the basis of legitimate settlement between the parties. Yet another offence which remains non-compoundable is S.506(ii) IPC, which is punishable with 7 years imprisonment. It is the judicial experience that an offence under S.506 IPC. In most cases is based on the oral declaration with different shades of intention. Another set of offence, which ought to be liberally compounded, are Ss.147 and 148 IPC, more particularly where other offences are compoundable. It may be added here that the State of Madhya Pradesh vide M.P. Act No.17 of 1999 (Section 3) has made SS.506(ii) IPC, 147 IPC and 148 IPC compoundable offences by amending the schedule under S.329 Cr.P.C."
Therefore a reading of the above discussion makes it clear that after conviction of the accused in a non compoundable offence, it cannot be permitted to be compounded but Crl.R.P. No.2614/2003 6 considering the fact that the parties had settled their dispute outside the court, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
7. In Bankat V. State of Maharashtra (2005(1) SCC 343), apex court held that non compoundable offences could not be compounded.
In view of the settlement, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and fine of 1000/- each u/ss.452 IPC and 506(ii) IPC, in default simple imprisonment for two months each.
Crl.R.P.is disposed of as above.
P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.
acd