KHURSHEED AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 489

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: C.K. THAKKER, ALTAMAS KABIR

Case summary

KHURSHEED AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.pdf

Judgment text

/ KHURSHEED AND ANR. v. STATE OF U. P. AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 [C. K. THAKKER AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ. ) Code o/Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss. 320(1), (2) and (BJ-Compounding ofoffences-Conviction u/ss. 323134 and 325134 ! PC-Jn appeal before Supreme Court, compromise petition filed andpermission for compounding sought- HELD: Offence u/s 323 is compoundable at the instance ofvictim, permission ofCourt is not necessary-Offence u/s 325 is compoundable with permission ofCourt-Compounding ofoffence permitted and accused ordered to be acquitted. In the instant appeal filed against the judgment and order ofthe High Com1 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s. 325 r/w s. 34 IPC and conviction and sentence ofrigorous imprisonment for three months u/s. 323 r/w s.

34 IPC, as modified by the SessionsJudge in an appealfiled by the accused, it was submitted on behalf of the accused-appellants that since the matter was compromised and amicable settlement arrived at between the accused persons and the victim-complainants,the compounding may be allowed. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. 1. An offence ofcausing hurt punishable under Section 323 IPC falls under sub-section (1) ofSection320 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973. It is compoundable at the instance of the person to whom the hurt is caused. Permission ofthe Courtis not necessary. Since the parties have compounded, the act ofcompounding is in accordance with law. [Para 10) [493-C] \_ 1. 2. An offence ofcausing grievous hurt punishable under Section 325 IPC is covered by sub-section (2) of'Section 320 ofthe Code, and is, thus, compoundedwith the permission ofthe Court. The parties have compounded the offences.

As stated in the compromise deed, complainant and his mother (injured) did not want any action against B the appellants (accused). The parties are neighbours, their houses are situated adjacent to each other and they have been living peacefully for the last many years and there is no dispute among them. It is further stated that to continuesweetrelationship and harmony, complainantside does not want to take any action against the accused. . [Paras 12and13) . [493-F,G; 494-A) 1. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and considering the deed ofcompromise, ends of justice would be met if necessary permissionis granted for compounding the offencepunishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC as required by sub-section (2) ofSection 320 of the Code. The offence punishable under Section 323 IPC has already been compounded by the parties. [Paral4] [494-B,C) . 1. 4. The resultant effect ofcompounding ofoffences u/s. 320(8) Cr. P. C.

would be that once the offences have been compounded and the requisite permission is granted by the Court, the accused must be acquitted. Compounding ofoffence is permitted and the appellants are ordered to be acquitted. (Paras 15and16) [494-D, E] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1302of2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 24. 3. 2006 ofthe High Court ofUttaranchal at Nainital in Crl: Revision No. 627 of2001. Ashok Kumar Sharma for fu,e Appellant~. · T. N. Singh, Rajeev Dubey, Kamlendra Misra, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia and Vishnu Sharma for the Respondents. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by / KHURSHEED v. STATE OF U. P. [THAK. KER, J. ] 491 C. K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against judgment and order passed by the High Court ofUttaranchal at Nainital on March 24, 2006 in Criminal Revision No. 627 of2001.

By the said order, the High Court dismissed the Revision and confirmed the order ofconviction and sentence passed by the Ilnd Assistant Session Judge, Roorkee on January 28, 1992 and confirmed by the District and Session Judge, Haridwar on June 9, 1992. 3. Brieffacts leading to the present appeal are that according to the prosecution, on May 7, 1989 at about 8. 00 a. m. in the morning, one Mahmood Hassan was returning to his house after offering a prayer (namaz). He met Zahoor, Khursheed, Naseem and Islam who assaulted him. When Smt. Kulsoom @ Bhoori, wife of Mahmood Hassan attempted to save her husband, she was also assaulted. Injuries were sustained by both ofthem. The incident was witnessed by Islam, Waseel Ahmed and others. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Gufran Ali, son ofMahmood Hassan on the same day at Jhabreda Police Station. The injured Mahmood Hassan and his wife Smt. Kulsoom were medically examined at Civil Hospital, Roorkee.

The Doctor opined that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. After completion of police investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons and charge was framed for offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 4. The trial Court, vide its judgment and order dated January 28, ~- 1992, convicted Khursheed and Islam (Accused Nos. 2 and 4) for offences punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each ofthem to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine ofRs. 500/- and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court, Haridwar.

The learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction ofthe accused but reduced sentence from one year to six months for offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC with fine ofRs. 500/- each and from six months to three months for offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The challenge to the said conviction and sentence was unsuccessful and the High Court, as stated above, confirmed the order ofconviction and sentence passed by the lower appellate Court. 6. When the matter was placed before the learned Chamber Judge ofthis Court, a statement was made thatthe parties had settled the matter and since the offences were compoundable, compromise could be """'\ recorded. A Deed ofCompromise was also placed on record. But, since there was no affidavit filed in support thereof, the learned Chamber Judge permitted the appellants to file 'regular compromise petition'. The matter was, therefore, adjourned. 7.

Again, the matter appeared on board on August 4, 2006 when the following order was passed: "A Memorandum ofCompromise has been filed before this Court which in effect, is a prayer for compounding the offence. The same has been signed by the complainant as well as by one ofthe injured witnesses, the other having died. Issue notice to Gufran, the complainant. On account ofold age ofthe lady namely Kulsoom, we do not require her presence at this stage. The aforesaid Gufran may appear in person or through his advocate. p Issue notice on the application for condonation of-delay also. In the meantime, the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction ofthe Trial Court, till further orders". 8. We have heard learned counsel for ·the parties. 9. It was stated that the matter has been -compromised between the parties, amicable settlement has been arrived at and compounding may be allowed.

It was further submitted that both the offences for which the appellants were convicted are compoundable. Section 320 ofthe Code f KHURSHEED v. STATE OF U. P. [THAKKER, J. ) 493 ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') deals with Compounding ofOffences. Sub-section (1) of Section 320 ofthe Code reads thus: 320. Compounding ofoffences. --(1) The offences punishable underthe sections ofthe Indian Penal Code (45of1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column ofthat Table:-- Table ............ . 10. An offence of causing hurt punishable under Section 323 IPC falls under sub-section (1) ofSection 320 ofthe Code. It is compoundable at the instance of the person to whom the hurt is caused. Permission of the Court is not necessary. Since the parties have compounded, the act ofcompounding is in accordance v. rith law. 11.

Sub-section (2) ofthe said section provides for compounding ofoffences with the permission ofthe Court. It reads thus: (2) The offences punishable underthe sections ofthe Indian Penal Code (45of1860) specified in the first two columns ofthe table next following may, with the permission ofthe Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table:-- Table ... ... ... ... ... 12. An offence of causing grievous hurt punishable under Section 325 IPC is covered by sub-section (2) of Section 320 ofthe Code. It is thus clear that an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC is also compounded with the permission ofthe Court. 13. The parties have compounded the offences. As stated in the compromise deed, Gurfan Ahmad, complainant and his mother Kulsoom @ Bhoori. (injured) did not want any action against the appellants (accused).

The parties are neighbours, their houses are situated adjacent to each other and they have been living peacefully for last many years \ and there is no dispute among them. It is further stated that to continue sweet relationship and harmony, complainant side does not want to take any action against the accused. A prayer is, therefore; made to accept the compromise. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, and considering the Deed ofCompromise and having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, ~nds of justice would be met if we grant necessary pennission for compounding an offence punishable under Section 325 read ~ with Section 34 IPC as required by sub-section (2) of Section 320 of the Code. The offence punishable under Section 323 IPC has already been compounded by the parties. 15.

Sub-section (8) of Section 320 states that the composition of offence under the section shall have an effect ofacquittal ofthe accused with whom the offence has been compounded. The resultant effect of compounding ofoffences would be that the accused should be acquitted. In other words, once the offences have been compounded and the requisite ~. permission is granted by the Court, the accused must be acquitted. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Compounding ofoffence is permitted and the appellants are ordered to be acquitted. RP. · Appeal allowed.