Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
2. On the basis of investigation carried out by the police challan was filed in the court and copies of the same were supplied to the accused to his satisfaction.
3. On the basis of the challan, charge for committing the offence punishable under Section 279/337 IPC was framed against the accused on 09.07.2013, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During evidence two formal witnesses had examined, however, matter was compromised between the injured and the accused. Statement of the parties were recorded and offence under Section 338 IPC was compounded with the permission of the court.
4. It is pertinent to note that the injured are the chief witnesses of the prosecution and have already compounded the major offence disclosed in the charge sheet. An issue was raised by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that this is a fit case for exercising power under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. for stopping the proceedings as nothing fruitful would be achieved. There is possibility of witnesses not deposing against the accused or turning hostile. I agree with the submissions of the Ld. Counsel. Even more relevant is the description of accident in Asal Tehrir and statement of victim and eye witness. Even otherwise, Sections 279 and 337 of IPC both punished rash and negligent act. The only difference is that in Section 279 IPC there is rashness and negligence which may result in injury and Section 337 IPC is invoked when such an act actually results in an injury being caused. Section 337 IPC has been made compoundable but Section 279 IPC is not compoundable. Perhaps, one reason is that, as far as Section 337 IPC is concerned, there is a determinable victim i.e. injured whereas in offence under Section 279 IPC, there is no determinable injured who can compound the offence. In a recent decision entitled as Adwait Surendra Aatre Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., in Criminal Application no.124 of 2011, whereas Ld. Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held and I quote :
6. Ld. APP for State has submitted that the judgment is not laying down correct law and trial for offence under Section 279 IPC must be completed and power under Section 258 Cr.P.C., ought not to be exercised in the present case.
7. The court is also of the view that once offence under Section 338 IPC is compounded continuing the trial for the offence under Section 279 IPC shall be vexing the accused twice. Although, I am not fully in agreement with the view that Section 279 IPC looses its significance once Section 337 IPC is invoked by the police and that Section 337 IPC is not independent but only graver form of the offence under Section 279 IPC. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case the decision of Bombay High Court and the futility of purpose in proceeding with the trial of minor offence when the major offence has already been compounded by the victim, I am of the view that present case is a fit case for exercising power under Section 258 Cr.P.C. I direct that the proceeding in the present case are stopped which shall operate as discharge of the accused.