MATHURA SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

                        [2009] 7 S.C.R. 102

                                                                 ~
A                   MATHURA SINGH & ORS.
                                v.
                         STATE OF U.P.
                Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2009
                         APRIL 27, 2009
B
           (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                        GANGULY, JJ.)
         CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:

c        s.320 - Compounding of offences - Accused convicted
    by trial court ulss. 307134 and 323134 /PC - High Court
    converting conviction to ss.324134 and 323134 !PC -
    Application by complainant and accused for permission to
    compound the offences - Allowed - Conviction and sentence
    set aside - Penal Code, 1860 ss.324134 and 323134.           •
D
       In the instant appeal filed against the judgment of the
  High Court whereby the conviction recorded by trial court
  u/ss 307/34 and 323/34 IPC was altered to ss.324/34 and
  323/34 IPC, the complainant and the accused filed an
E application for permission to compound the offences.
                                                                          -
        Disposing of the appeal, the Court
       HELD : The complainant has volunteered to
  compound the offence with the appellants for sufficient
F and genuine reasons as stated in the affidavits and such
  compounding would be proper. So far as the offence u/s
  323 IPC is concerned, it is compoundable with the
  consent of the injured. So far as the offence u/s 324 is

G
  concerned, it is compoundable by the person to whom
  hurt is caused with the permission of the Court, in terms
  of Sub-section (2) of s.320 IPC. The offences h~ving been
  permitted to be compounded, the conviction and
                                                                     ..   -
  sentence are set aside. (para 5, 6) [105-A-C]


H                              102.
                           MATHURA SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF U.P.            103
 ,
           ...
                      Mano} and Anr v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2008 (9) SCC        A
                 116) - relied on.
  ~
                                     Case Law Reference
                      2ooa (9) sec 116)          relied on        para 4
                      CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICITON: Criminal Appeal              B
_.,              No. 851 of 2009

                      From the Judgement and Order dated 31.03.2008 of the
                 Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
                 Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 1985.                       c
                     S. Parikh, A.N. Singh, J. Sahu, Mamta Saxena, Anita
                 Shenoy, for the Appellant.
                       Aditya K. Dubey, Shankar Divate, Umesh B. Chaurasiya,
       ..        for the Respondent.
                                                                                   D
                      The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
                      DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
                      1. Leave granted.
                                                                                   E
                       2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by
  ..             the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court, Lucknow
                 Bench, allowing the appeal filed by the appellants in part. The
       A
                 appellants were convicted by learned Additional Sessions
                 Judge, Sultanpur, for offences punishable under Sections 307
                 and 324 both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,       F
                 1860 (in short 'IPC'). For the offence relatable to Section 307
                 read with Section 34 each was sentenced for imprisonment for
                 five years R.I. and for'the offence under Section 323/34 each
                 was sentenced for six months R.I.
                                                                                   G
                      2. By the impugned judgment the High Court altered the
       ~
                 conviction to Section 324 read with Section 34 and 323 read
                 with Section 34 IPC. It is not necessary to go into the factual
                 aspects in detail as an application has been filed by the
                 complainant and the accused persons stating that the
                                                                                   H
    104        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2009] 7 S.C.R.


A occurrence took place nearly 25 years back and the parties are         ..
  related to each other and, therefore, they may be permitted to
  compound the offences. Individual affidavits of all the parties             f
  have been filed. It is to be noted that one of the injured persons
  Mutra Devi has expired on 23.3.1985.
B         3. As noted above, presently the appellants stand convicted
    for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with
    Section 34 IPC.
        4. This Court in Manoj and Anr. v. State of Madhya
c   Pradesh (2008 (9) SCC 116), has held as under:
          13. We have examined the provisions of Section 320 of
          the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "CrPC") which
          deals with compounding of offences. Section 320(1) CrPC
          provides that the offences punishable under the sections
D         of the 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 Penal Code, specified in the first two
E         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. Voluntarily causing hurt by     A
          dangerous weapons or means by the accused constitutes
F         an offence under Section 324 IPC which can be
          compounded by the person to whom hurt is caused with
          the permission of the court in terms of sub-section (2) of
          Section 320 CrPC.
          14. It requires to be noticed that the CrPC (Amendment)
G         Act, 2005 (Act 25 of 2005) amended 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 have been omitted. But the said amendment by Act
H         25 of 2005 has not yet been brought into force. Therefore,
                MATHURA SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF U.P.           105
                       [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

            the offence under Section 324 IPC is still compoundable   A
            with the permission of the court."
           5. We are satisfied that the complainant has volunteered
     to compound the offence with the appellants for sufficient and
     genuine reasons as stated in the· affidavits and such
     compounding would be proper. So far as the offence under 8
     Section 323 is concerned, it is compoundable with the consent
     of the injured. So far as the offence under Section 324 is
     concerned, it is compoundable by the person to whom hurt is
     caused with the permission of the Court, in terms of Sub-
     section(2) of Section 320.                                     C
          6. In view of that matter compounding the offence, the
     conviction and sentence are set aside.
            7. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

     R.P.                                       Appeal disposed of.




_,