In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order
compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code
ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment,
however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive
sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a
relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.24/2021
Murali Vs State rep. by the Inspector of Police
DATED : 05-01-2021
Leave granted.
2. These connected appeals have been preferred against the judgment
dated 01.11.2018 of the High Court of Madras which upheld Murali’s
(appellant in SLP (Crl) No 10813/2019) conviction under Sections 324 and
341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) with a sentence of three
months’ rigorous imprisonment, and Rajavelu’s (appellant in SLP (Crl)
10814/2019) conviction under Sections 307 and 341 of IPC and sentence of
five years’ rigorous imprisonment.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.08.2005, one Senthil had
a verbal altercation with Kumar (original accused no. 3) and Krishnan
(original accused no. 5) during a volleyball match. The injuredvictim
(Sathya
@ Sathiyajothi) came to the aid of his friend Senthil and opposed both
Kumar and Krishnan. Thereafter at about 2:30PM on 09.08.2005, the
appellants – Rajavelu and Murali (original accused nos. 1 and 2) along with
Muthu, Kumar and Krishnan (original accused nos. 3, 4 and 5) cornered the
victim and assaulted him. Murali allegedly struck the victim on his head
with a hockey stick and Rajavelu tried to kill him by giving a neck blow with
a Veechu Aruval (sharpedged
object), which was fortunately blocked by the
victim. In the process, the left hand of the victim and the thumb and finger
of his right hand got severed. The victim was able to escape and the matter
was reported by his friend, PW1.
All five persons were arrested. It further
led to registration of Crime No. 531 of 2005 under Sections
147,148,341,352, 323, 324, 307 and 34 of the IPC.
4. Relying upon the testimony of the victim (PW3),
which was held to be
unimpeachable and stellar, the Assistant Sessions Judge cumChief
Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, vide his judgment dated 28.01.2012 held
Murali guilty of wrongfully restraining the victim and voluntarily causing
hurt with a dangerous weapon. Based upon the medical evidence and
recovery of the Veechu Aruval from Rajavelu, the trial Court further opined
that the secondappellant
(Rajavelu) had a clear intention to murder the
victim and that if not for the victim defending himself, a fatal injury would
have been caused to his neck and he would have died instantaneously.
Consequently, a concurrent sentence of three months’ rigorous
imprisonment under Section 324 IPC and onemonth
rigorous
imprisonment under Section 341 IPC was imposed on Murali, and Rajavelu
was awarded five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and
another one month rigorous imprisonment under Section 341 IPC. Muthu,
Kumar and Krishnan were acquitted as there was no specific allegation by
the victim and no weapon or injury had been attributed to them by the
prosecution.
5. The convictappellants
challenged the aforestated
judgment before
two forums, both of which unanimously upheld their conviction. The
Additional DistrictcumSessions
Judge dismissed the first appeal through
an order dated 20.08.2013 and their criminal revision petition before the
High Court also met with the same fate vide an order dated 01.11.2018.
6. Unsatisfied still, the appellants have approached this Court seeking
special leave to appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of their
conviction. However, through an application filed on 22.11.2019, they have
sought to implead the injured victim
and get their offences compounded
based on mutual resolution and peaceful settlement between the parties.
This Court, nevertheless, issued limited notice only on the quantum of
sentence.
7. The records of the case elicit that the findings of all three preceding
forums are concurrent and without fault. Not only have the appellants been
unable to mount an effective challenge founded upon a question of law,
their learned Counsels, given the subsequent events and change in
circumstances, have very fairly restricted their prayer qua reduction of
sentence only.
8. A perusal of the applications for impleadment and compounding
makes it clear that the parties have on the advice of their elders entered into
an amicable settlement. The appellants have admitted their fault, taken
responsibility for their actions, and have maturely sought forgiveness from
the victim. In turn, the victim has benevolently acknowledged the apology,
and considering the young age of the appellants at the time of the incident,
has forgiven the appellants and settled the dispute. Learned Counsel for the
victimapplicant
has reiterated the same stance during oral hearings also.
9. There can be no doubt that Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (“CrPC”) does not encapsulate Section 324 and 307 IPC under
its list of compoundable offences. Given the unequivocal language of Section
320(9) CrPC which explicitly prohibits any compounding except as
permitted under the said provision, it would not be possible to compound the appellants’ offences.
10. Notwithstanding thereto, it appears to us that the fact of amicable
settlement can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in the
quantum of sentence. In somewhat similar circumstances where the parties
decided to forget their past and live amicably, this Court in Ram Pujan v.
State of UP [(1973) 2 SCC 456], held as follows:
“6. The only question with which we are concerned, as mentioned earlier,
is about the sentence. In this respect we find that an application for
compromise on behalf of the injured prosecution witnesses and the
appellants was filed before the High Court. It was stated in the application
that the appellants and the injured persons, who belong to one family, had
amicably settled their dispute and wanted to live in peace. The High Court
thereupon referred the matter to the trial court for verification of the
compromise. After the compromise was got verified, the High Court passed
an order stating that as the offence under Section 326 of the Penal Code,
1860 was noncompoundable,
permission to compound the offence could
not be granted. The High Court all the same reduced the sentence for the
offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860
from four years to two years.
7. The appellants during the pendency of the appeal were not released on
bail and are stated to have already undergone a sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for a period of more than four months. As the parties who
belong to one family have settled their dispute, it is, in our opinion, not
necessary to keep the appellants in jail for a longer period. The major
offence for which the appellants have been convicted is no doubt
noncompoundable,
but the fact of compromise can be taken into
account in determining the quantum of sentence. It would, in our
opinion, meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment
awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already
undergone provided each of the appellants pays a fine of Rs 1500 in
addition to the period of imprisonment already undergone for the offence
under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the of the Penal Code, 1860. In
default of payment of fine, each of the appellants shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a total period of one year for the offence under Section
326 read with Section 34 of the of the Penal Code, 1860. Out of the fine, if
realised, Rs 2000 should be paid to Ram Sewak and Rs 2000 to Ram
Samujh as compensation. We order accordingly.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. The aforecited
view has been consistently followed by this Court
including in Ishwar Singh v. State of MP [(2008) 15 SCC 667], laying
down that:
“13. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(2006) 9 SCC 255 : (2006) 2 SCC
(Cri) 561] , Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar [(2001) 10 SCC 504 : 2003 SCC
(Cri) 1032] and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P. [(2008) 15 SCC 671 : JT (1988) 3
SC 36 (1)] this Court, while taking into account the fact of compromise
between the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the appellantaccused
to already undergone, though the offences were not compoundable. But it
was also stated that in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan [1990 Supp
SCC 681 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 159 : AIR 1988 SC 2111] such offence was
ordered to be compounded.
14. In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order
compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code
ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment,
however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive
sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a
relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind.
15. In the instant case, the incident took place before more than fifteen
years; the parties are residing in one and the same village and they are
also relatives. The appellant was about 20 years of age at the time of
commission of crime. It was his first offence. After conviction, the petitioner
was taken into custody. During the pendency of appeal before the High
Court, he was enlarged on bail but, after the decision of the High Court, he
again surrendered and is in jail at present. Though he had applied for bail,
the prayer was not granted and he was not released on bail. Considering
the totality of facts and circumstances, in our opinion, the ends of justice
would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant
(Accused 1) is reduced to the period already undergone.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. In later decisions including in Ram Lal v. State of J&K, [(1999) 2
SCC 213], Bankat v. State of Maharashtra, [(2005) 1 SCC 343], Mohar
Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2015) 11 SCC 226], Nanda Gopalan v.
State of Kerala [(2015) 11 SCC 137], Shankar v. State of Maharashtra,
[(2019) 5 SCC 166], this Court has taken note of the compromise between
parties to reduce the sentence of the convicts even in serious noncompoundable
offences.
13. Given this position of law and the peculiar circumstances arising out
of subsequent events, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to
take a sympathetic view and reconsider the quantum of sentences awarded
to the appellants. We say so because: first, the parties to the dispute have
mutually buried their hatchet. The separate affidavit of the victim inspires
confidence that the apology has voluntarily been accepted given the efflux of
time and owing to the maturity brought about by age. There is no question
of the settlement being as a result of any coercion or inducement.
Considering that the parties are on friendly terms now and they inhabit the
same society, this is a fit case for reduction of sentence.
14. Second, at the time of the incident, the victim was a college student,
and both appellants too were no older than 2022
years. The attack was in
pursuance of a verbal altercation during a sports match, with there being no
previous enmity between the parties. It does raise hope that parties would
have grown up and have mended their ways. Indeed, in the present case,
fifteen years have elapsed since the incident. The appellants are today in
their midthirties
and present little chance of committing the same crime.
15. Third, the appellants have no other criminal antecedents, no previous
enmity, and today are married and have children. They are the sole bread
earners of their family and have significant social obligations to tend to. In
such circumstances, it might not serve the interests of society to keep them
incarcerated any further.
16. Finally, both appellants have served a significant portion of their
sentences. Murali has undergone more than half of his sentence and
Rajavelu has been in jail for more than one year and eight months.
17. Considering all these unique factors, including the compromise
between the parties, we deem it appropriate to reduce the quantum of the
sentence imposed on the appellants. The appeals are, therefore, partly
allowed and sentence of both the appellants is reduced to the period
already undergone by them. Consequently, they are set free and their bail
bonds, if any, are discharged. Any pending applications are disposed of
accordingly.
………………………………………….. J.
(N.V. RAMANA)
…………………………………………… J.
(SURYA KANT)
…………………..………………………. J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
NEW DELHI
DATED : 05012021
No comments:
Post a Comment