1999 JTR(SC) 78
1999 1 AICLR 30 ; 1999 AIR(SC) 895 ; 1999 AIR(SCW) 566 ; 1999 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 340 ; 1999 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 515 ; 1999 1 BBCJ(SC) 183 ; 1999 1 CCR(SC) 29 ; 1999 CriLR 137 ; 1999 1 Crimes(SC) 41 ; 1999 CrLJ 1342 ; 1999 1 EastCrC(SC) 915 ; 1999 ILR(Kar) 4029 ; 1999 1 JCC 122 ; 2010 5 JKJ(SC) 591 ; 1999 1 JT 147 ; 1999 2 KLT(SN) 26 ; 1999 1 OLR 434 ; 1999 1 PLJR(SC) 80 ; 2000 1 RCR(Cri) 92 ; 1999 1 Scale 162 ; 1999 2 SCC 213 ; 1999 SCC(Cri) 123 ; 1999 1 SCJ 335 ; 1999 1 SCR 230 ; 1999 KHC 471 ; 1999 1 Supreme 216
1999(1) Supreme 216
Supreme Court of India
(From Jammu & Kashmir High Court)
K.T. Thomas & M.B. Shah, JJ.
Ram Lal & Anr. -Appellants
versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1999
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3720 of 1998]
Decided on 25-1-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : D.D. Thakur, Sr. Advocate, Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent/Complainant/For State: M.C. Dhingra, Advocate (NP), (G.M. Kawoosa) Advocate for Ashok Mathur, Advocate.
Important Point
An offence which law declares to be non-compoundable even with permission of the court cannot be compounded at all and as such offence u/s 326 of IPC cannot be permitted to be compounded in view of legislative ban under Section 320(9) of Cr.P.C.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.320, S.326
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.234, ., S.320, S.326
(A) The relevant statutory framework comprises Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with the Indian Penal Code Sections 234, 320, and 326. Section 320 CPC delineates the specific offences which may be compounded, either by the person entitled to do so or with the permission of the Court, and explicitly sub-section (9) prohibits compounding of any offence not provided for in the said Tables. The offences punishable under Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) and Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) fall under the Indian Penal Code provisions engaged in this appeal. The provisions operate to define the contours of legal finality, permitting the compromise of certain offences while denying the remedy where the law declares an offence to be non-compoundable.
(B) The core legal principles are that non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded even with court permission, and any decision contrary to the explicit bar under Section 320 CPC is liable to be treated as per incuriam. While the court may take a lenient view in appropriate cases to mitigate sentences, the compounding of offences is strictly governed by the Tables in Section 320 CPC.
Facts of the case:
Two appellants were convicted under Sections 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The first appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment, and the second appellant to two years imprisonment. The parties entered into a compromise, and a petition for compounding was filed.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the offence under Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable as per the statutory Tables and cannot be compounded despite the parties settlement. The petition for compounding the Section 326 offence was rejected. However, showing leniency, the sentence for the first appellant was reduced to the period already undergone, and he was directed to be released. The offence under Section 324 IPC was permitted to be compounded, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence for the second appellant, resulting in his acquittal.
Issues:
Whether an offence declared non-compoundable under Section 326 IPC can be compounded with the permission of the court, and whether the court can reduce the sentence in view of the settlement and the time already undergone.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court ruled that statutory compounding is strictly limited to the offences enumerated in Section 320 CPC, and non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded at all. The court, however, exercised its discretion to show leniency by reducing the sentence of the first appellant to the period already served, while permitting the compounding of the compoundable offence under Section 324 IPC.
Result:
The appeal was disposed of by rejecting the compounding request for Section 326 IPC and reducing the first appellants sentence to the period already undergone, and by acquitting the second appellant under Section 324 IPC.
(A) The relevant statutory framework comprises Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with the Indian Penal Code Sections 234, 320, and 326. Section 320 CPC delineates the specific offences which may be compounded, either by the person entitled to do so or with the permission of the Court, and explicitly sub-section (9) prohibits compounding of any offence not provided for in the said Tables. The offences punishable under Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) and Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) fall under the Indian Penal Code provisions engaged in this appeal. The provisions operate to define the contours of legal finality, permitting the compromise of certain offences while denying the remedy where the law declares an offence to be non-compoundable.
(B) The core legal principles are that non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded even with court permission, and any decision contrary to the explicit bar under Section 320 CPC is liable to be treated as per incuriam. While the court may take a lenient view in appropriate cases to mitigate sentences, the compounding of offences is strictly governed by the Tables in Section 320 CPC.
Facts of the case:
Two appellants were convicted under Sections 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The first appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment, and the second appellant to two years imprisonment. The parties entered into a compromise, and a petition for compounding was filed.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the offence under Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable as per the statutory Tables and cannot be compounded despite the parties settlement. The petition for compounding the Section 326 offence was rejected. However, showing leniency, the sentence for the first appellant was reduced to the period already undergone, and he was directed to be released. The offence under Section 324 IPC was permitted to be compounded, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence for the second appellant, resulting in his acquittal.
Issues:
Whether an offence declared non-compoundable under Section 326 IPC can be compounded with the permission of the court, and whether the court can reduce the sentence in view of the settlement and the time already undergone.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court ruled that statutory compounding is strictly limited to the offences enumerated in Section 320 CPC, and non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded at all. The court, however, exercised its discretion to show leniency by reducing the sentence of the first appellant to the period already served, while permitting the compounding of the compoundable offence under Section 324 IPC.
Result:
The appeal was disposed of by rejecting the compounding request for Section 326 IPC and reducing the first appellants sentence to the period already undergone, and by acquitting the second appellant under Section 324 IPC.
Order
Leave granted.
2. The first appellant Ram Lal stands convicted of the offence under Section 326 of the IPC and is undergoing a sentence of three years. The second appellant has been convicted of Section 324 of the IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for two years. The parties have compromised and a petition for compounding has been filed. We cannot accede to the request for compounding in regard to the offence under Section 326 IPC as the same is a non-compoundable offence. Sri DD Thakur, learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Y. Suresh Babu v. State of AP & Anr.1 and Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan2 wherein non-compoundable offences were allowed to be compounded. In Y. Suresh Babu (Supra) it was specifically observed that the said case “shall not be treated as a precedent.” In the latter case (Mahesh Chand) offence under Section 307 IPC was permitted to be compounded with the following observations:
“Wee gave our anxious consideration to the case and also the plea put forward for seeking permission to compound the offence. After examining the nature of the case and circumstances under which the offence was committed, it may be proper that the trial Court shall permit them to compound the offence.”
3. We are unable to follow the said decision as a binding precedent. Section 320 which deals with “compounding of offences” provides two Tables therein, one containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded by the person mentioned in it, and the other containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded with the permission of the Court by the persons indicated therein. Only such offences as are included in the said two Tables can be compounded and none else. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 imposes a legislative ban in the following terms:
“(9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section."
It is apparent that when the decision in Mahesh Chand (Supra) was rendered attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to the aforesaid legal prohibition. Nor was attention of the learned Judges who rendered the decision in Y. Suresh Babu (supra) drawn. Hence those were decisions rendered per incuriam. We hold that an offence which law declares to be non-compoundable even with the permission of the Court cannot be compounded at all. The offence under Section 326 IPC is, admittedly, non-compoundable and hence we cannot accede to the request of the learned counsel to permit the same to be compounded.
However, considering the fact that parties have to come to a settlement and the victims have no grievance now and considering the further fact that first appellant has already undergone a period of imprisonment of about six months, a lenient view can be taken and the sentence can be reduced to the period which he had already undergone. We order so and direct the jail authorities to set him at liberty forthwith.
Regarding the second appellant we permit the parties to compound the offence (Section 324 IPC) in view of the joint application filed by the legal representatives of the deceased complainant and the second appellant (vide his application No. Crl.M.P. No. 7648/98). In view of the aforesaid compounding of the offence under Section 324 of IPC we set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the second appellant and he is acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Appeal disposed of accordingly.
*********