MANOJ & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 989

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

Case summary

MANOJ & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH.pdf

Judgment text

(2008] 13 S. C. R. 989 MANOJ & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1530 of 2008) SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 8 [R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ. ] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 320 . (2) - Conviction u/s 324 and 324134 /PC - Compounding of the offence - Permissibility - Held: Offence u/s 324 /PC can be compounded by the person to whom the hurt is caused, with the permission of the Court - In the facts of the case, the Court is satisfied tf]at the complainant has voluntarily desired to compound the offence - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 324. •-i Trial court convicted appellant No. 1 u/s. 307 IPC and u/s 25 (1 B) (a) and s. 3 of Arms Act. Appellant No. 2 and another accused were con. victed u/s 307 r/w s. 34 IPC. High Court converted the conviction u/s. 307 and 307 r/w s. 34 ll~C to one under s. 324 and 324 r/w 34 respectively. Appellant No. 1 was acquitted of the provisions under Arms Act. Appeal was preferred to this Court by the appellants.

Appellants filed petition seeking compounding of the offences. They stated that they and the complain- . ant have compounded the offence with the intervention of the village Panchayat. The complairJant in his affidavit also stated to the same effect. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means by the accused constitutes an offence under Section 324 IPC which can be compounded by person to whom hurt is caused with the permission of the Court in terms of sub-Section (2) of Section 320 Cr. P. C. Code of Criminal Proc~dure (Amendment) Act, 2005 [Act No. 25/2005] amending Section 320 Cr. P. C. whereby in the Table under sub-section (2) (a) omitting the words "voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means" in column 1 and the entries relating thereto in columns 2 and 3, has not yet been brought into force. Therefore, the offence under 324 is still compoundable with the permis· sion of the Court. [Paras 12 and 13] [995,A·C] . 2.

The appellants and the complainant are residents of the same village and with the intervention of the village panchayat, the complainant has compounded the offence with the appellants and now he has no grievance against them. The appellants and the complainant have categorically stated in their affidavits filed before this Court that after the incident they have developed family relations and they wish to reside peacefully in the village in future with· out any kind of disruption in their future lives. The court is satisfied that the complainant has voluntarily desired to compound the offence with the appellants for sufficient and genuine reasons stated in their respective affidavits and such compounding is legal and valid. The parties are allowed to compound the offence u/s. 324 IPC. [Paras 14 and 15] [995,D·F] · CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1530 of 2008 From the final Judgment and Order dated 11. 12.

2007 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Crl. Appeal No. 631 of 2000 . Jai Prakash Pandey and F. I. Choudhury for the Appellants. R. P. Gupta, G. D. Singh, Sunny Chowdhary, Vairagya Vardhan Dubey, Aditya Singh, Pramod Kumar Yadav, Viresh Kumar Yadav and Goodwill lndeevar for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ?. J ('. ··. MANOJ & ANR. v. 'STATE OF MADHYA 991' PRADESH · ,LOKESHWAR SINGH . PANTA, J. 1. Leave granted. -,. r· - . t· ··1-· • !. ; - . (" ,.. _ . . I . _.. 2. Manofand Bijendra Singh - two broth. ers have filed this, a'ppeal against the. judgment and order dated 11. 12.. 2007 " • ' '. / •. •' .. ' . ~- ' ~> '' " ·• r · • passed in Criminal Appeal No. 631/2000 by. the High Court of Madhya Prract'! 3sh8ench at. Gwalior,,whereby and. whereunder,. 8 the c~nvic~ion,? f Manoj-apP. ~llant,No.. 1, h~[ein repord~d by Special Juqge (t'JD~S) ~nd,Additi<? ,~al ? ession;s J. udge. :Gwalior in Sessions TrialNo..

161/99 under Section 307 readwith Section 34 'of the indian,Pena{ Code [for sti. ort 'IPC'J has been. al- . • ; '· - ~ I · , j ... , ; _-, ,.. , . , . ) • 1' t • • , .... • · - ·I tered ,to Section 324, IP. C and sentenced to undergo,rigorous .. imprisonment for 3'years, ~iiereas convicti~n of Bijendra Singh; 'c '1 ' t) • . l <. .. . '' •. - ' . ~ ,- t .. ,, • ,... • .. -· . .. , - __,, app~ll~~(t-:J. q.. 2 he~ein,(as ~! _so a~cusecfNo. ~"Raf'n Avtar) from. :L Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC has. been converted to, '~ '· ' .. . , ' . ·. ,]·. ~ . . ; ~ '. . . . "-'' . : - -- - Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Appellant No. 2 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3years, whereas Ram Avatar ~as•. ~een ordered _,o, undergo rigorou~ imp~iso~-: :•D ment for one year. The conviction otappellant No. 1 under Sec-;. -: tion 25 (1 B) (a) read with Se'ctio'n' 3 of the Arms Act has been . set as1'de. ·. " ·~ · "' . ,. , ' · · · · · . ~ "-,· .... ,~il·. \~4C' ·i··i·..

1,t~,'-;_... ""' 1 d :<3; Briefly stated, the facts'of th'eprosecution case are that on 23. 01. 1999 at about 1o:oo a:m. 'complainahtBahadur Singh' 1 (P. W. 4)along with Rakesh (P. W. 2) and Ram yaran Sirign (P. W.. 9) (both hostile witnesses) was excavatin'g sand oflthe bank of · river Devipura·near village Duhia Chak. Appellant No. 2 armed ' with:12 bO're·gun:' his·crothe(Appellanl No. ' farmed with't<atta -· ~ 1 (cou·nfry made fire-arm) and Ra'ni'·Avatar~accused holding·: • pharsa ih ·his hand ca'i'ne·to the spofand ·started ab'usihg the complainant'(P. W. 4). 'P. W. ·4-told them'that hewas extracting sand from government land: It was alleged·tharRam AVatar~: T accused gave pharsa blow which caused injury to the calf-ankle o{complainant's Jett leg, backand knee. Appeilant No.. 2 fired . G · gu_n ,sh6twh\ch hit on the wrjst of right hand o(the COmRlainant ·. : whereas Appellant No. 1 fired pellets from kattawhich hit the , headand forehead of.

Bahadur Singh, whoas a result of receiv•. ,. ing. the injuries feJI on the ground. All the three accused persons . the'reafter ran away· from the sceri'e of occurrence. " 4. Injured Bahadur Singh lodged First Information Report (Exhibit- P5) on the same day at Police Station, Bijoli. He was sent to the hospital for medical examination. Investigation of the case was conducted by Assistant Sub-Inspector Babu Ram Sharma (P. W. 10) on the spot. During investigation, he seized one brass cartridge and recorded the statements of the wit- -... nesses. Sub-Inspector Ashok Tiwari (P. W. 14) arrested Appellant No. 1 on 08. 02. 1999 and recorded his disclosure statement (Exhibit- P11 ). Pursuant thereto, 'Katta' which was being used by him at the time of occurrence of the offence, was produced from a hidden place at the back of 'kothi' constructed in the field of Majboot Singh Jaat. Ram Avatar was arrested on 08. 02.

1999 and on his statement; pharsa was recovered from the field of Majboot Singh Jaat. Pistol allegedly used by Appellant No. 2 was examined by Santosh Singh (P. W. 11) in D. R. P. Line, Gwalior, who certified that the said pistol was in running condition as per his Report (Exhibit- P18). Brij Mohan Sharma, Sub-Divisional Magistrate (P. W. 12) produced on record permission (Exhibit -P19) to prosecute the accused under the Arms Act. On receipt of Injury Report and X-Ray Report prepared by Dr. Purshottam Jaju (P. W. 5) and Dr. Avinash Naidu (P. W. 6) and completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the above said three accused in the Court of First Class Magistrate. The Magistrate committed the trial of the case to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge assigned the trial of the case to the Special Judge (NDPS) cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior.

The accused persons were charge sheeted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 25(1 B) (a} and Section 3 of the Arms Act. The accused denied charges and claim to be tried. 5. During the trial, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. The trial court, on analysis of the entire evidence on record, convicted all the three accused for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. In addition, Appellant No. 1was convicted under Section 25 (1 B) (a) read with Section 3 of the Arms Act. Appellant No. 1 was sentenced to ) undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 307 ! PC and one year rigorous · --imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 25 (1 B) (a) read with Section 3 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, he has been ordered to suffer three months' -{ imprisonment. Appellant No. 2 and Ram Avatar (Accused Nos.

3 and 2) were sentenced to suffer five years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, both the accused persons were ordered to six months' imprisonment. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has been ordered to be paid to the complainant - P. W. 4. 6. Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 2 preferred Criminal appeal No. 63112000 whereas Ram Avatar filed Criminal Appeal No. 650/2000 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior. The lear. ned Single Judge of the High Court ·-t partly allowed the appeals and altered the conviction from under Section 307 ! PC to Section 324 IPC and imposed the aforesaid sentence upon them. The High Court acquitted Appellant No. 1 in respect of the offence under the Arms Act. 7. Now, Appellant No. 1 and his brother Appellant No. 2 have filed this appeal by way of special leave.

It appears that no appeal has been filed by Ram Avatar-accused against the judgment and order of the High Court. 8. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 10. 03. 2008, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the parties had agreed to compound the offence and in that view of the matter, notice was issued to the respondent-State and also to Bahadur Singh - complainant. 9. The appellants have filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4257/2008 praying for permission to compound the offence with the complainant. They have inter alia stated that they and complainant - P. W. 4 are neighbours and are residing in the same village. Af1er the alleged incident, the complainant and the appellants have come into close relations just like fam- ily members and they want to reside peacefully in future without any kind of disruption in their future life.

Having considered their close relations amongst themselves, one village panchayatwas held in the village in which the complainant has agreed to compound the offence with the appellants as now he has no griev- 8 ance against the appellants. 10. Complainant Bahadur Singh has filed an affidavit (Annexure.. ,.. P3) dated 16. 01. 2008. The complainant has stated in the said affidavit that on his complaint a case was registered against the appellants Manoj, Bijendra Singh and accused Ram Avatar which has resulted in the conviction of the accused persons. He stated that Manoj and Bijendra Singh are residents of his village and the village people have got their disputes compromisE~d by holding a village panchayat and now they would desire to live peacefully and that at present no dispute exists between them. 11. Heard Shri Jai Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri R. P.

Gupta, learned senior counsel for respondent-State and Shri Pramod Kumar Yadav for complainant-Bahadur Singh. The learned counsel for the complainant stated before us that the complainant has compromised the case with the appellants and in that view of the matter their appeal may be accepted. 12. We have examined the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short 'the Cr. P. C. '] which deals with compounding of offences. Section 320(1) of the Cr. P. C. provides that the offences punishable under the Sections of Indian Penal Code specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table.

Under sub-Section (2) of Section 320, offences punishable under the Sections of the Indian Penal Code, specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table. Vol- untarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means by the accused constitutes an offence under Section 324 IPC which can be compounded by person to whom hurt is caused with the permission of the Court in ·terms of. sub-Section (2) of Section 320 Cr. P. C. ·B 13. It requires to be noticed that Cr. P. C. (Amendment) Act, 2005 [Act 'No. 25/2005famehded Section' 320 of the Code and in the Table under sub-Section (2) (a) the words "voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means" in column 1 and the entries relating thereto in columns 2 and 3 has been omitted. But the said amendment by Act No. ·25 of 2005 has not yet been brought into force.

Therefore, the offence und~H 324 is still compoundable with the permission of the Court, 14. The appellants and the complainant are residents of the same village and with the interv~ntion of the village panchayat the complainanthas compounded the offence with the appellants and now he has no grievance againstthem: The appellants and the complainant have categorically stated in'their affidavits filed before us that after the incident they have developed family relations and they wish to re~ide peacefully in the village in future without any kind of disruption in their future lives. 15. We are satisfied that the complainanthas voluntarily ·desired to compound the offence with the. appellants for suffi- . cient and genuine reasons stated in their respective affidavits 'and such compounding is legal and valid. We ailow the parties .. · . ·. . 1 . . · . F to compouna the offence under Section 324 IPC. Criminal Miscellafleou~'Petition No. 4257tiboa stands, accordingly, ·allowed.

'in view of the compounding, the conviction andsentence is set aside. The appellants, who'ar_e in jail undergoing sentence, shall be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appeal is dispo~ed of accordingly. ' • , ;i,,. " K. K. T. Appeal disposed of. ' '· • ! \1· '' . i ... ~ :, J I •