LexBANKAT AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·, A BANKA T AND ANR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA NOVEMBER 25, 2004 B [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] Penal Code, · 1860 : S. 326 rlw s. 34-Four accused convicted by trial court-High Court C upholding conviction but reducing sentence of two accused to the period already undergone-Remaining two accused filing appeal-Their prayer for compounding the offence on the ground of compromise rejected by High Court-Held, only offences covered by Tables appended to sub-section (1) and (2) of s. 320 Cr.P. C. can be compounded-However, parties having D settled their dispute and 10 years having elapsed, sentence reduced to the period already undergone-Besides, fine imposed-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-S. 320. Appellants, A-1 and A-2, alongwith A-3 and A-4 were convicted by the trial court of offences punishable under s. 326/34 and 325/34 IPC. E The appellants and A-3 were awarded imprisonment for one year under s. 326 read with s. 34 IPC; but keeping in view the age of A-4, he was sentenced to imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. The High Court reduced the sentence of A-3 and A-4 to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of A-1 and A-2 was maintained. F Their application for modification of the order on the ground of compromise between the parties was also rejected. In the appeals filed by A-1 and A-2 it was contended that since the dispute between the parties had been amicably settled iu a compromise, the High Court should have accepted their prayer for modification of G the order and extended to the appell~nts as well the benefit granted to the other so-accused. H Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. In view of the legislative mandate contained in Section 406 BAN.KAT v. STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA [PASA Y AT, J.] 407 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, only the offences which A are covered by the Tables appended to sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) thereof can be compounded and the rest of the offences punishable under the IPC could not be compounded. The course adopted in Ram Pujan's* case and Mahesh Chand's** case was not in accordance with law. [410-A, B] B Surendra Nath Mohanty and Anr. v. State of Orissa, (1999] 5 SCC 235 and Ram Lal v. State of J & K, [1999] 2 SCC 213, relied on. *Ram PUjan v. State ofU.P., [1973] 2 SCC 456 and **Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, [1990) Supp. SCC 681, held per incuriam. C Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A.P., JT (1987) 2 SC 361, referred to. 1.2. However, considering the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the court, the fact that 10 years have elapsed from the date of the incident, and the further fact that the appellants have D already undergone several months' imprisonment, ends of justice would:. be met if the sentence of imp!"isonment is reduced to the period already undergone besides imposing a fine of Rs.· 5000 on each of the accused under s. 326 read with s. 34 IPC. Sentence awarded by trial court and affirmed by High Court is modified accordingly. (411-A, B] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 1344·1345 of 2004. From the Judgment and Order dated l l.12.2003 and 1.4.2004 of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad in Crl.A. No. 167/95 and Crl.A. No. 313/2004 in Crl.R.A. No. 167 of 1995. B.N. Deshmukh, S. Sooriya Kumaran and Venkateshwara Rao for the Appellants. Mukesh K. Giri for the Respond~nt. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J,: Leave granted. E F G Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a H 408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The appellants who are described as A-1 and A-2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') had questioned correctness of their conviction as recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Osmanabad for offences punishable under Sections 325 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, B 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). For offence relatable to Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC each of A-1 to A-3 was sentenced by the learned trial Judge to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 500 with default stipulation. But looking. . to the age of A-4, he was sentenced to imprisonment for one month and pay C a fine of Rs.500 with default stipulation. No separate sentence was passed for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.