Holding

Even if an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC, the Supreme Court may, under Article 142, reduce the sentence and order compensation while maintaining the conviction.

Summary

The appellant was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC for causing the death of a seven‑year‑old girl by negligent driving of a tractor. He was sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000, with the conviction under Section 279 later set aside by the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal the parties reached a compromise, raising the question of whether a Section 304A offence, which is not compoundable under Section 320 of the CrPC, could be settled. The Supreme Court, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, held that even non‑compoundable offences may have the sentence reduced and a higher fine imposed to compensate the victim's family, while maintaining the conviction. Accordingly, the fine was increased to Rs.20,000 payable to the parents of the deceased and the imprisonment was reduced to the period already served, subject to payment of the fine. The appeal was disposed of with the modified sentence.

Issues considered

Whether an offence punishable under Section 304A IPC, which is not listed as compoundable under Section 320 CrPC, can be compounded or have its sentence altered on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 320
Constitution of Indias. Article 142
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Section 279, s. Section 304A

Subjects

Compounding of offencesSection 304A IPCArticle 142Sentence reductionCompromiseFineCompensationCriminal ProcedureNon‑compoundable offenceJustice

Judgment

[2008) 17 S.C.R. 272 e
A PUTTASWAMY
•
'

II.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

(Criminal Appeal No. 2015 of 2008)

B
DECEMBER 11, 2008

[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]
~
~
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Invoking of-
c Power of Supreme Court to give quietus to litigation by giving
pragmatic solution - Offence uls.304A - Compounding of-
On facts, accused was convicted under s.304A !PC for ~
causing death of minor girl by rash· and negligent driving -
He was sentenced to unde'rgo simple imprisonment for 6
D months and directed to pay fine of Rs.2,0001- - Meanwhile
compromise arrived at between the parties - Held:Offence
u/s.304A is not compoundfJble in terms of s.320 CrPC,
however, on facts, instead of confining the accused to prison, v
interest of justice would be better served if he compensates
E the family of deceased on account of loss suffered by them
- While maintaining conviction, amount of fine increased
from Rs.2,0001- to Rs.20,0()01- to be paid by accused to
parents of the deceased - Sentence reduced to period
already undergone, subject' to payment of fine - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 -l s.320 - Penal Code, 1860 -
F
s.304A i(i
.
-~
Accused-appellant was inter alia convicted by the·
Courts below uls. 304A IPC for causing death of a seven
year old girl by rash and negligent driving of his tractor.
G
During pendency of the present appeal, the matter
was settled between the concerned parties and a
compromise petition was executed between the appellant + r

H
and the complainant.
272 -
._,
PUTTASWAMY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 273
''>

The question which consequently arose for A
-- ),
consideration in the present appeal was whether the
offence under s.304A IPC could be compounded even
though the same was not covered by the provisions of
s.320 CrPC.
8
Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. In order to meet certain unusual
~ situations, this Court has from time to time taken
recourse to innovations and the powers vested in it under
Article 142 of the Constitution, in order to give a quietus c
.........__ to a litigation demanding a pragmatic solution. It has also
been consistently held by this Court that when an
offence did not come within the ambit of s.320, CrPC but
the proceedings taken on the basis thereof deserved to
be terminated, a sentence could always be reduced while D,
maintaining the conviction and in most cases the
-,j sentence was reduced to the period of the sentence
already undergone. In other cases, where circumstances
so warranted, even the sentence was altered which at
times brought the proceedings within the scope of s.320, E
CrPC and the offence was allowed to be compounded.
Even if an offence is not compoundable within the scope
of s.320 CrPC, the Court may, in view of the compromise
arrived at between the parties, reduce the sentence
imposed while maintaining the conviction. [Paras 5] [276- F
)> C-F]
~·

1.2. In the present case, th~ appellant was convicted
under ss.279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/-. The sentence as far as conviction under s.279 G
IPC is concerned was set aside by the High Court. What
~ ...-,. remains after the judgment of the High Court is conviction
under ss.279 and 304A IPC wherein the appellant was
.... sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment
along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. This is one of those cases H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A · where instead of confining the appellant to prison, the
interest of justice will be better served if he is made to
compensate the family of the deceased on account of the
loss suffered by them. [Para 9] [277-E-H]

1.3. While maintaining the appellant's conviction
8
under ss.279 and 304A IPC, notwithstanding the
agreement arrived at between the parties, the amount of
fine is increased from Rs.2,00,0/- to Rs.20,000/- to be paid
by the appellant to the parents of the deceased and the
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone,
C subject to payment of the fine. [Para 10] [277-H; 278-A]

Surendra Nath Mohanty and another vs. State of Orissa
(1999) 5 sec 238; Ram Lal and another vs. State of J & K
(1999) 2 SCC 213; Bachhu Sin~h vs. State of U.P (2000) 10
D SCC 313; Avinash Shettyvs.State of Karnataka and another
(2004) 13 SCC 375 and Y. Suresh Babu vs. State of A.P.
(2005) 1 sec 347, referred to~ \.-...
. i ~

Case Law Reference:
E (1999) 5 sec 238. Referred. to Para 6
(1999) 2 sec 213 Referred to Para 7
(2000) 10 sec .313 Referred to Para 7

F (2004) 13 sec 375 Referred to Para 8
;4_

(2005) 1 sec 347 Referred to Para 8 ~·

'
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 2015 of 2008.
G From the final Judgment an~ Order dated 4.10.2007 of the
I
High Court of V 3r.nc:· .aka at Bangalore in Crl. Revision Petition
No. 244 of 2005 .

.·. Shekhar. G. Devasa and Dinesh Kumar Garg for the ...
H Appellant.

/
PUTTASWAMY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 275

Anitha Shenoy, Greesh and V.N. Raghupathy for the A
-.;..

-
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
2. The appellant in this appeal was convicted for an
offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian
---~ Penal Code for causing the death of a seven year old girl on
account of his rash and negligent driving of his tractor. The
appeal from the said order and conviction and sentence having e
been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant
moved in revision before the High Court. ·in revision, the
Karnataka High Court, while confirming the conviction, set aside
the sentence in respect of the offence punishable under Section
279 of the Indian Penal Code but maintained the conviction and 0
sentence in respect of the offence under Section 304-A of the
--,.i.
Indian Penal Code, whereby the appellant was sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine
of Rs.2,000/-, and in default of such payment, to undergo further
simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine
E
of Rs.600/- for the offence punishable under Section 2791.P.C.
and in default of such payment to undergo simple imprisonment
.. for a month .

.3. In this appeal the appellant has challenged the order of
). conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Civil Judge F
)r·
(Jr.Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, II Court,
Hassan, and the subsequent orders passed by the Sessions
Court and the High Court maintaining the conviction under
Sections 279 and 304-A and the sentence in respect of the
conviction under Section 304-A, l.P.C. G

. ., ,\ 4. During the hearing of this appeal, at the admission
stage, learned counsel for the appellant informed the Court that
lllilfl' the matter had been settled between the parties and a
compromise petition had been executed between the appellant
H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
'

[2008] 17 S.C.R.
e
A and the complainant. On such submission, the complainant was
,;!;,,~-
impleaded as a party to the present proceedings and the short
point which ultimately arose during the hearing is whether the
offence under Section 304-A could at all be compounded since
"'""
the same is not covered by the provisions of Section 320 l.P.C.
B 5. The aforesaid question has troubled this Court on
different occasions, not only in connection with compounding
of offences punishable under the criminal justice system, but
t~
also in respect of civil matters, and in respect of matrimonial
matters in particular; where the Court had to strike a balance
c between the rigidity of the law and doing substantial justice to
the parties. In order to meet certain unusual situations, this
Court has from time to time taken ~ecourse to innovations and
the powers vested in it und.er Article 142 of the Constitution, in
order to give a quietus to a litigation demanding a pragmatic
D solution. It has also been consistently held by this Court that
when an offence did not come within the ambit of Section 320
of Criminal Procedure Code but the proceedings taken on the ...-
.

basis thereof deserved to be terminated, a sentence could
always be reduced while maintaining the conviction and in most
E cases the sentence was reduced to the period of the sentence
already undergone. In other cas~s. where circumstances so
warranted, even the sentence was altered which at times ~

brought the proceedings within the scope of Section 320 of -
Criminal Procedure Code and the offence was allowed to be
F compounded. .'(
-"'(
6. In this connection regard may be had to the decision of
this Court in the case of Surendr~ Nath Mohanty and another
vs. State of Orissa [(1999) 5 SCC 238], which was disposed
of by a Three-Judge Bench, wherein in respect of a conviction
G under Section 326 l.P.C. the sentence was reduced to the
period already undergone together with fine. Of course, as
mentioned hereinbefore, the said .decision was rendered in the :;.. f'"

facts of the said case. ._,_
H 7. Reference was also made to two other decisions of this
PUTTASWAMY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 277
[ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

Court in i) Ram Lal and another vs. State of J & K [(1999) 2 A
SCC 213) and ii) Bachhu Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2000 (10)
sec 313], wherein the same formula was applied.
8. As far as the other proposition is concerned, reference
may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of .B
Avinash Shetty vs. State of Kamataka and another [(2004
(13) SCC 375] where the conviction was altered from Section
326 to 324 l.P.C. and the offence was permitted to be
compounded. There is yet another decision in the case of Y.
Suresh Babu vs. State of A.P. [(2005) 1 SCC 347] which deals C
directly with a conviction under Section 326 IPC. This Court
allowed the parties to compound the case in the special facts
and circumstances of the case, but also directed that the same
was not to be treated as a precedent.

' 9. What emerges from all these decisions is that even if D
an offence is not compoundable within the scope of Section
320 of Code of Criminal Procedure the Court may, in view of
the compromise arrived at between the parties, reduce the
sentence imposed while maintaining the conviction. In the
present case, the appellant has been convicted under Sections E
279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and has been
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6
months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The sentence as far as
conviction under Section 2791.P.C. is concerned has been set
aside by the High Court. What remains after the judgment of F
the High Court is the conviction under Sections 279 and 304-
A l.P.C. wherein the appellant was sentenced to undergo six
months simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In
our view, this is one of those cases where instead of confining
the appellant in prison, the interest of justice will be better served G
if he is made to compensate the family of the deceased on
account of the loss suffered by them.

10. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellant's
.... conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A l.P .C.,
notwithstanding the agreement arrived at between the parties, H
278 SUPREME COURT REPqRTS [20Q8] 17 S.C.R.

A we increase the amount of fine from Rs.2,000/- to Rs:20,000i
- to be paid by the appellant to the parents of the C:eceased x~
and reduce the sentence to the period already undergone,
subject to payment of the fine. The.aforesaid amqunt is to be
deposited by the appellant in the Trial Court within three weeks
B from date, and on such deposit, the ,said amount shall be made
over to the parents of the deceased and the appellant shall be
released forthwith. In default .pf such deposit; this order shall
remain in abeyance for a period of four weeks and if still no t
deposit is made within the said period the appeal will stand
c dismissed.

11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

B.B.B. Appeal disposed of.