Supreme Court of India
MD. ABDUL SUFAN LASKAR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ASSAM
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 968
- Decided
- 25 August 2008
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- C K THAKKER
Holding
An offence under Section 324 IPC committed before the 2005 amendment is compoundable with the Court's leave, and therefore the compounding sought by the parties is permissible.
Summary
The appellants were convicted under Sections 147 and 324 of the IPC for attacking Abdul Haque Laskar with deadly weapons in 1995. After the convictions, the parties entered into an amicable settlement and sought to compound the offences. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the offence under Section 324 IPC could be compounded, given that the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 had later removed its compoundability. The Court held that at the time of the offence (1995) Section 324 was compoundable with the leave of the Court under Section 320 of the 1973 CrPC, and the 2005 amendment, which came into force in 2006, could not be applied retroactively. Consequently, the Court allowed the compounding and acquitted the appellants, setting aside the convictions and sentences of the lower courts.
Issues considered
- Whether an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, committed in 1995, is compoundable despite the 2005 amendment removing its compoundability.
- Whether the parties' settlement and request for compounding can be entertained under the law as it stood at the time of the offence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
compounding of offenceSection 324 IPCCriminal Procedure Codeamendment act 2005settlementacquittalretroactive application of law
Judgment
[2008] 12 S,C.R. 561
y'
MD. ABDUL SUFAN LASKAR AND ORS. A
V.
STATE OF ASSAM
(Criminal Appeal No.1343 of 2008)
AUGUST 25, 2008
l
B
A [C.K. THAKKER AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.320 - Code of
Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 25 of 2005)
- Compounding of offence - Offence under s. 324 /PC - c
Allegedly committed in 1995 - Parties compromising the
matter - Whether compounding of the offence was
permissible - Held, Yes, since offence uls.324 was
compoundable under the CrPC as it stood in 1995 - Though
such offence is no more compoundable in view of the CrPC
D
(Amendment) Act, 2005, but the said Amendment Act came
into force only from June 23, 2006 and thus has no
application to the facts of the present case - Penal Code,
1860 - s.324.
Appellants alongwith other accused persons E
allegedly attacked 'A' with deadly weapons and caused
grievous injuries on different parts of his body. The
Courts below convicted the Appellants under ss.324 and
147 IPC.
It was stated before this Court, that the parties had F
meanwhile compromised the matter and had entered intp
an amicable settlement.
The question which arose for consideration in the
present appeal was as to whether in view of the said
G
... ' compromise and settlement, compounding of the offence
~
allegedly committed by the Appellants under s.324 IPC
was permissible.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
561 H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 12 S.C.R.
A HELD:1. The compounding of an offence signifies
that the person against whom an offence has been
committed has received some gratification to an act as
an inducement fo·r his abstaining from proceeding
further with the case. Certain offences are very serious
s in which compromise or settlement is not permissible.
Some other offences, on the other hand, are not so
serious and the law may allow the parties to settle them
by entering into a compromise. [Para 12] [566-G-F]
Vinjay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Sewa Sahkari Bank Ltd.
C (2008) 2 sec 305 - relied on.
2. 1. s.320, CrPC deals with offences which are
compoundable, either by the parties without the. l~av.e
of the Court or by the parties but only with the leave of
the Court. Sub-section (1) of s.320 enumerates the
0
offences which are compoundable without the leave of
the Court, while sub-section (2) of the said section
specifies the offences which are compoundable with the
leave of the Court. Offences not referred to in sub-
sections (1) and (2) of Section .320 and not included in
E the concerned Table are not compoundable. Similarly,
offences punishable under laws other than the Indian
Penal Code also cannot be compounded. Sub-section
(8) of s.320 CrPC expressly enacts that where the
composition of an offence under this section is recorded
F by the Col!rt, it shall have effect of an acquittal of the
accused with whom the offence has been compounded.
Under the Code, as originally enacted in 1973, an offence
punishable under s.324, IPC (voluntarily causing hurt
by dangerous weapons or means) was made
G compoundable with the leave of the Court. However the
offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous )- ~
weapons or means punishable under s.324, IPC is no
more compoundable in view of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 25 of 2005) which
H came into force from June 23, 2006. [Paras 13, 14, 15,
MD. ABDUL SUFAN LASKAR & ORS. v. STATE 563
OF ASSAM
~-r
16] [566-H, 567-A-H, 568-A] A
2.2. The appellants had allegedly committed the
offence on June 15, 1995. In view of the above fact, Act 25
of 2005 has no application to the facts of the present case.
Therefore, there is no ground to refuse permission as
sought by the parties who have compromised the offence B
~
:/. which was compoundable under the Code as it stood in
1995. If it is so, compounding can be permitted and accused
(appellants) can be acquitted. [Para 17] [268-8-C]
Case Law Reference c
(2008) 2 sec 305 relied on Para 12
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 1343 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2007 of D
~ the High Court of Assam at Gauhati in Criminal Revision No.
331 of 2003
-i
Azim H. Laskar and Abhijit Sengupta for the Appellants.
Vishal Arun, Anand and Avijit Roy (for Mis. Corporate E
Law Group) for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal. is filed against an order of F
,._,.-\
conviction and sentence recorded by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hailakandi on September 21, 2002, confirmed by
the Sessions Judge, Hailakandi on May 26, 2003 and also
confirmed by the High Court of Assam on July 31, 2007.
G
. ·{ 3. Few relevant facts of the case are that on June 15,
1995, according to the case of the prosecution, one Moinul
Haque Laskar lodged a First Information Report (FIR) before
the Officer-in-charge, Hailakandi Police Station. In the FIR, it
was alleged by the informant complainant that his brother Abdul
H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008]'12 S.C.R.
A Haque Laskar had gone to cultivate land early in the morning
at about 6.30 a.m. Eight accused as mentioned in the FIR
armed with deadly weapons attacked Abdul Haque Laskar
and caused grievous injuries on different parts of his body. On
hearing hue and cry of the complainant Moinul Haque Laskar
B and his brothers, several persons arrived there. The accused
j
persons fled away and the injured was taken to hospital. On x
, receiving FIR, Officer-in-charge of Hailakandi Police Station
registered Case No. 195 of 1995 against the accused for
commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 325
c and 506 of Indian P~nal Code (IPC) and started investigation.
During the course of investigation, several statements came
to be recorded. The injured was examined by the Medical
Officer and a charge sheet was submitted for offences
punishable under Sections 147, 323, 326 and 506, IPC against
all the accused.
0
4. The charge was read over and explained to the
accused who pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried. The
prosecution, in order to prove the case against the accused,
examined five witnesses including injured Abdul Haque Laskar,
E Medical Officer and Investigating Officer. The 'defence' did
not examine any witness. In the statement under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Code'), the accused denied the incident and
involvement in any manner whatsoever.
F 5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi vide
his judgment and order dated September 21, 2002, held the
case against accused proved for offences punishable under
Sections 147 and 324, IPC. On sentence, however, the learned
Magistrate noted that accused Islam Uddin (accused No.5),
G Sahab Uddin (accused No.6), Aftab Uddin (accused No.3)
and Fakar Uddin (accused No.2) were young. He, therefore,
thought it fit to grant benefit of releasing them on admonition
since they did not appear to have committed any offence in
past nor they were involved in any offence. The learned Judicial
H Magistrate, however, convicted Abdul Subhan (accused No.1 ),
MD. ABDUL SUFAN LASKAR & ORS. v. STATE 565
OF ASSAM [C.K. THAKKER, J]
-y'
Abdul Wahid (accused No. 7), Abdul Kuddus (accused No.8) A
and Muslim Uddin (accused No.4) for offences punishable
under Sections 147 and 324, IPC. For an offence punishable
under Section 147, IPC, the learned Magistrate ordered the
abovestated accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month and a fine of Rs.100 each, in default, simple B
\
imprisonment for five days. For the offence punishable under
I
Section 324, IPC, he ordered them to undergo simple
imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs.200/- each, in
default, simple imprisonment for ten days. The sentences were
ordered to run concurrently. c
6. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and
sentence, all the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 20
of 2002. The learned Sessions Judge upheld the order of
conviction as well as sentence and dismissed the appeal.
D
. "-<( 7. The four accused who were ordered to undergo
substantive sentence, then preferred Criminal Revision No.
331 of 2003. The High Court, by the impugned order,
-i .
dismissed the revision holding that no illegality could be said
to have been committed by both the Courts below. The said
order is challenged in the present appeal. E
8. On April 1, 2008, the Hon'ble Chamber Judge granted
the prayer for ~xemption from surrendering in view of short
sentence imposed on the appellants. The matter was then
placed before the Court for admission hearing on April 28, F
~~\\ 2008. On that day, it was .stated by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the parties had entered into an amicable
settlement and though the offence punishable under Section
324, IPC has now been made non-compoundable, at the time
when the offence was committed, it was compoundable. The
G
Court, in view of the above statement, issued notices by
... { making them returnable early. Notice was also ordered to be
issued to injured Abdul Haque Laskar. Notices were
accordingly served on respondents.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. H
566 SUPREME COURr REPORTS [2008) 12 S.C.R.
A 10. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the parties have compromised the matter, entered into
settlement and an application is made to that effect praying
therein that compounding may be ordered for offences
punishable under ·Sections 14 7 and 324, IPC and an
B appropriate order in accordance with law may be passed;
Compromise deed is also placed on record signed by the I
parties wherein it is expressly stated that the injured Abdul x
Haque Laskar has voluntarily given his consent without any
force, threat, coercion, undue influence, pressure etc., from
c any quarter whatsoever for making the joint compromise
petition before this Court. A prayer is, therefore, made by all
the parties. to. compound the offence and acquit the three
appellants· who have approached this Court.
11 . Now it is no doubt true that every crime is considered
D to be an offence against the society as a whole and not only
against an individual even though an individual might have
suffered thereby. It is, therefore, the duty of the State to take
appropriate action against the offender. It is equally the duty
of a Court of law administrating criminal justice to punish a
E criminal.
12. But there are offences and offences. Certain offences
are very serious in which compromise or settlement is not
permissible. Some other offences, on the other hand, are not
so serious and the law may allow the parties to settle them by
F entering into a compromise. The compounding of an offence
signifies that the person against whom an offence has been
committed has received some gratification· to an act as an
· inducemenffor his abstaining from proceeding further with the
case [Vinjay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Sewa Sahkari Bank Ltd.,
G (2008) 2 sec 305].
13. So far as the Code is concerned, Section 320 deals ) .
with offences which are compoundable, either by the parties
without the leave of the Court or by the parties but only with
the leave of the Court. Sub-section (1) of Section 320
H·
MD. ABDUL SUFAN LASKAR & ORS. v. STATE 567
OF ASSAM (C. K. THAKKER, J]
enumerates the offences which are compoundable without the A
leave of the Court, while sub-section (2) of the said section
specifies the offences which are compoundable with the /eave
of the Court. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 declares; "No
offence shall be compounded except as provided by this
-section". ·it is thus clear that offences not referred to in sub- B
sections (1) and (2) of Section 320 and not included in the
Table are not compoundable. Similarly, offences punishable
under laws other than the Indian Penal Code also cannot be
compounded.
14. Sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Code expressly C
enacts that where the composition of an offence under this
section is recorded by the Court, it shall have effect of an
acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been
compounded.
D
15. Under the Code, as originally enacted in 1973, an
offence punishable under Section 324, IPC (voluntarily causing
hurt by dangerous weapons or means) was made
compoundable with the leave of the Court. The said entry
read as under:
TABLE
Offence Section of the Person by whom
Indian Penal Code offence may be
Applicable compounded
F
1 2 3
Voluntarily 324 The person to whom
causing hurt hurt is caused.
by dangerous
weapons or
G
means.
16. It is no doubt true as stated by the learned counsel
for the appellants even at the time of preliminary hearing of
this matter that by the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 25 of 2005) the above entry has H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 12 S.C.R.
A been deleted. In other words, an offence of voluntarily causing y
hurt by dangerous weapons or means punishable under
~-
Section 324, IPC is no more compoundable. The Amendment
Act of 2005 came into force from June 23, 2006.
17. As we have already noted, according to the
B prosecution, the appellants had committed the offence on June
I
15, 1995. In view of the above fact, in our opinion; Act 25 of
2005 has no application to the facts of the case. We, therefore,
x
see no ground to refuse permission as sought by the parties
who have compromised the offence which was compoundable
c under the Code as it stood in 1995. If it is so, compounding
can be permitted and accused (appellants) can be acquitted.
18. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the appeal
deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by holding
that since the matter has been compounded by compromise
D
between the parties and there is no illegality therein, such
compounding can be permitted by the Court. the appellants \-
are, hence, entitled to acquittal.
~
19. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by all
E Courts is hereby set aside and the appellants are ordered to
be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
B.B.B. Appeal allowed.
I
l
j ...
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "compounding of offence"Sign in to search