Holding

Only offences listed in the tables under Section 320 CrPC can be compounded; Section 326 IPC is non‑compoundable, so compounding is not permissible.

Summary

Surindra Nath Mohanty and another were convicted under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Orissa High Court set aside the conviction under Section 307 but upheld the others, rejecting the appellants' request to compound the offences on the ground that the dispute had been settled. The Supreme Court examined the scheme of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which permits compounding only of offences listed in its tables, and held that offences such as Section 326 IPC are non‑compoundable. Consequently, the High Court was correct in refusing permission to compound. However, considering the settlement, the ten‑year lapse since the incident and the three months already served, the Court reduced the sentence to the time already undergone, imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 on each accused, and directed compensation of Rs 9,000 to the injured.

Issues considered

Whether offences under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323 IPC (read with Section 34) are compoundable under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Whether the High Court could grant permission to compound a non‑compoundable offence.
Whether a settlement between parties and the lapse of time can affect the sentencing for non‑compoundable offences.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 320(1), s. 320(2), s. 320(9)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307, s. 323, s. 324, s. 325, s. 326, s. 34

Subjects

compounding of offencesnon‑compoundable offencesSection 320 CrPCsentencingsettlementIndian Penal Code

Judgment

SURINDRA NATH MOHANTHY AND ANR. A
v.
STATE OF ORISSA

MAY 4, 1999

[K.T. THOMAS, M.B. SHAH AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] B

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 :

Sections 320 sub-section (1), (2) & (9)-Compounding of non-
compoundable offences-Appellants convicted under Sections 307, 326, 325, C
324 & 323 read with Section 34, !PC by the trial court-On revision, High
Court altered the conviction under section 307 but confirmed the convictions
under other sections-Whether conviction could be compounded by the High
Court-Held, n~However, in view of the fact that parties have settled their
disputes and I 0 years have elapsed from the date of the incident and that
the appellants have undergone 3 months' imprisonment, sentence reduced to D
the period already undergone, with a fine of Rs. 5000 on each ofthe accused-
Compensation to the injured-Directed to be paid from out of the fine amount
realised from the accused

The appellants were convicted and sentenced under Sections 307, 326, E
325, 324 & 323 read with Section 34, IPC and were sentenced to 5 years
rigorous imprisonment and fine. On revision, the High Court came to the
conclusion that from the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the
injured and also from the manner in which the car struck against the
injured, it was difficult to hold that the intention of the accused was to kill
the injured and, therefore, it was hazardous to uphold their conviction under F
Section 307 IPC. High Court altered the conviction of the appellant under

.. section 326, 325, 324 & 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence this appeal•

It was contended by the appellants that as the disputes was amicably
settled and the matter was compromised, the High Court ought to have
granted permission to compound the offence and ought not to have convicted G
the appellants and imposed the sentenced.

Partly allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. For compounding of the offences punishable under the
Indian Penal Code, complete scheme is provided under Section 3~0 of the H
1005
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 2 S.C.R.

A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub-section (1) of Section 320 provides
that the offences mentioned in the table provided thereunder can be compounded
by the persons mentioned in Column No. 3 of the said table. Further, Sub-
section (2) provides that, the offences mentioned in the table could be
compounded by the victim with permission of the Court. As against this, Sub-
section (9) specifically provides that "no offence shall be compounded except
B as provided by this Section". In view of the aforesaid legislative mandate, only
the offences which are covered by table 1 or 2 as stated above can be
compounded and the rest of the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code
could not be compounded. (1008-A-C]

C Ram Lal v. State of J & K, JT (1999) 1 SC 147, relied on.

Ram Pujan & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 456,
distinguished.

Mahesh Chand & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, JT (1988) 1 SC 618 and
D Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A.P. Anr., JT (1987) 2 SC 361, overruled.
2. Considering the fact that parties have settled their dispute outside
the Court and the fact that 10 years have elapsed from the date of the incident
and the further fact that appellants have already undergone 3 months
imprisonment as per the sentence imposed on them, ends of justice would
E be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already
undergone besides imposing a fine of Rs. 5000 on each of the accused under
Section 326 read with section 34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the
appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3
months. Out of the fine amount, if realised, a sum of Rs. 9000 also be paid
p to the injured as compensation. (1009-A-C]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.
497-98of1999.
--..
From the Judgment and Order dated 5,9, 1997 of the Orissa High Court
G in Crl. R. No. 436 of 1994.

Vijay Hansaria and Sunil Jain for Mis Jain Hansaria & Co. for the
Appellants.

Jana Kalyan Das for the Respondent.
-
H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.N. MOHANTHY v. STATE OF ORISSA [SHAH, J.) 1007

- SHAH, J. Leave granted.

These appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 5th
September, 1997 and 10th November, 1997 passed by the High Court of Orissa
A

at Cuttack in Criminal Revision No 436 of 1994 and Miscellaneous Case No.
521-of 1997 whereby Revision Petition against the conviction order and the
application for correction, alteration and for compounding offence filed by the B
appellants were rejected.

The appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 307, 326,
325, 324 & 323 read with Section 34. l.P.C. and sentenced to 5 years R.I. and
fine of Rs. 200 in default of payment of which to undergo R. I. for one month.
That Order was challenged before the High Court by filing Criminal Revision C
No. 436 of 1994. After considering the entire evidence on record, the Court
held that from the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the injured,
and also from the manner in which the car struck against the injured, it was
difficult to come to a conclusion that the intention of the accused was to kill
the injured and, therefore, it would be hazardous to uphold their conviction D
under Section 307 1.P.C. After considering the injuries casued to the witness,
the High Court altered the conviction of the appellants under Section 326,325,
324 & 323 read with Section 34 1.P.C. and having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and the affidavit of the witness produced on
record, the Court imposed sentence of six month's R.I and fine ofRs.l,000 in
default of payment of which to undergo R.I for further three months for the E
offence under Section 326 IPC and no separate sentence was imposed on the
other counts of offences. Against that order, these appeals are filed by special
leave.

It is vehemently contended by the learnd Counsel for the appellants
that as the dispute was amicably settled and the matter was compromised, the F
High Court ought to have granted permission to compound the offences and
ought not to have convicted the appellants and imposed the sentence. For
this purpose, reliance is placed upon the decisions of this Court in Ram Pujan
and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1973) SCC 456 and Mahesh Chand and
Anr. v. State of Rajasthan JT, (1988) 1 SCC 618. As against this, learned G
Counsel for the respondent submitted that the offence under Section 326 is
not compoundable and the High Court has rightly rejected the application for
compunding the same. He, for this purpose, relied upon the Judgment of this
Court in Ram Lal and Anr. v. State ofJ & K, reported in JT (1999) 1 SC 147
wherein after referring to Section 320 (9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the Court observed that the decision in Mahesh Chand (supra) was rendered H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A perincuriam.

In our view, submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent
-
requires to be accepted. For compounding of the offences punishable under
the Indian Penal Code, complete scheme is provided under Section 320 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub-Section (1) of Section 320 provides that
B the offences mentioned in the table provided thereunder can be compounded
by the persons mentioned in Column No. 3 of the said table. Further sub-
section (2) provides that, the offences mentioned in the table could be
compounded by the victim with the permission of the Court. As against this,
sub-Section (9) specifically provides that "no offence shall be compounded
C except as provided by this Section." In view ofthe aforesaid legislative mandate,
only the offences which are covered by table 1 or 2 as stated above can be
compunded and the rest of the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code
could not be compounded.

Further, decision in Ram Pujan's case (supra) does not advance the
D contention raised by the appellants. In the said case, the Court held that major
offences for which accused have been convicted were no doubt non-
compoundale, but the fact of compromise can be taken into account in
determining the quantum of sentence. In Ram Lal (supra), the Court referred
to the decision of this Court in Y. Suresh Babu v. State ofA.P. & Anr., (1987)
2 JT 361 and to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in
E Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, [1990] Suppl. SCC 631 and held as
under:-

"We gave our anxious consideration to the case and also the plea put
forward for seeking permission to compound the offence. After
examining the nature of the case and circumstances un.der which the
F offence was committed, it may be proper that the trial court shall
permit them to compound the offence."

In the case of Y. Suresh Babu the Court has specifically observed that
the said case "shall not be treated as a precedent." The aforesaid two decisions
·-
are based on facts and in any set of circumstances,, they can be treated as
G perincuriam as pointed attention of the court to sub-section (9) of section
320 was not drawn. Hence, the High Court rightly refused to grant permission
to compound the offence punishable under Section 326.

We reiterate that the course adopted in Ram Pujan v. State of U.P. &
Others, and Mahesh Chand & Anr, v. Stateof Rajasthan, (supra) was not in
H accordance with law. However, considering the fact the parties have settled
S.N. MOHANTHYv. STATE OF ORISSA (SHAH, J.] 1009
their dispute outside the Court and the fact thatlO years have elapsed from A
the date of the incident and the further fact that appellants have already
undergone 3 months imprisonment as per the sentence imposed on them, we
. think that \ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is
reduced to the period already undergone besides iµiposing a fine of Rs. 5000
on each of the accused under Section 326 r~d with section 34 l.P.C. We
reduce the sentence as indicated above and direct that in default of payment B
of fine, the appellant concerned shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
furhter period of three months. We also refrain from imposing any separate
sentence on the other counts of offences. Out of the fine amount, if realised,
a sum of Rs. 9,000 also be paid to the injured as compensation.

The Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
c
R.K.S. Appeals disposed.