LexMURALI versus STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 201 MURALI v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2021) JANUARY 05, 2021 [N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.320 – Compounding of offence under ss.307, 324 – Prosecution case was that fifteen years ago, over a volleyball match, verbal altercation took place between victim-injured and original accused no.3 and 5 who after sometime cornered the victim along with the appellants and assaulted him – Appellant-M struck the victim on his head with a hockey stick and appellant-R tied to kill him by giving a neck blow with sharp edged object and in the process, left hand of the victim and the thumb and finger of his right hand got severed – Trial court held appellant-M guilty under ss.324 and 241 IPC and appellant-R under ss.307 and 341 IPC – Appellant-M was imposed three months rigorous imprisonment while appellant-R was sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment – Sessions court and High Court affirmed the order of conviction and sentence – Appellant challenged his conviction in the instant appeal – However, through an application, appellants sought to implead the injured-victim and get their offences compounded based on mutual resolution and peaceful settlement – Held: There can be no doubt that s.320 CrPC does not encapsulate s.324 and 307 IPC under its list of compoundable offences – Notwithstanding thereto, the fact of amicable settlement can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in the quantum of sentence – The quantum of sentences awarded to the appellants can be reconsidered in view of the fact that at the time of incident, the victim was in college and appellants were in early twenties – Appellants had no other criminal antecedents, no previous enmity and now they are married having children – Both the appellants also served a significant portion of their sentences – In view of the [2021] 1 S.C.R. 201 201 A B C D E F G H 202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R. position of law and the peculiar circumstances arising out of subsequent events, a sympathetic view taken – Quantum of sentence of the appellants reduced to the sentence already undergone by them – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.307 and 324. Ram Pujan v. State of UP (1973) 2 SCC 456 ; Ishwar Singh v. State of MP (2008) 15 SCC 667: [2008] 14 SCR 574 ; Ram Lal v. State of J&K, (1999) 2 SCC 213: [1999] 1 SCR 230 ; Bankat v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 343 ; Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 11 SCC 226 ; Nanda Gopalan v. State of Kerala (2015) 11 SCC 137 : [2015] 4 SCR 563 ; Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 5 SCC 166 – relied on. Case Law Reference (1973) 2 SCC 456 relied on Para 10 [2008] 14 SCR 574 relied on Para 10 [1999] 1 SCR 230 relied on Para 12 [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 406 relied on Para 12 (2015) 11 SCC 226 relied on Para 12 [2015] 4 SCR 563 relied on Para 12 (2019) 5 SCC 166 relied on Para 12 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No 24 of 2021. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. R.C. No. 1185 of 2013. With Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2021. Jayanth Muth Raj, Raja Rajeshwaran, S. Advs., Ramakrishna Reddy, A. Rajarajan, K. Paari Vendhan, M. Yogesh Kanna, Aditya Chadha, T. Harish Kumar, Raghunatha Sethupathy, Ms. Hemlata Rawat, Aayushmaan Vatsyayana, Deepak Anand, Advs. for the appearing parties. A B C D E F G H 203 The following Order of the Court was passed : O R D E R 1. Leave granted. 2. These connected appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 01.11.2018 of the High Court of Madras which upheld Murali’s (appellant in SLP (Crl) No 10813/2019) conviction under Sections 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) with a sentence of three months’ rigorous imprisonment, and Rajavelu’s (appellant in SLP (Crl) 10814/2019) conviction under Sections 307 and 341 of IPC and sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.08.2005, one Senthil had a verbal altercation with Kumar (original accused no. 3) and Krishnan (original accused no. 5) during a volleyball match. The injured- victim (Sathya @ Sathiyajothi) came to the aid of his friend Senthil and opposed both Kumar and Krishnan. Thereafter at about 2:30PM on 09.08.2005, the appellants – Rajavelu and Murali (original accused nos. 1 and 2) along with Muthu, Kumar and Krishnan (originalaccused nos. 3, 4 and 5) cornered the victim and assaulted him.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.