LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SHAMBHU KEWAT AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 973 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHAMBHU KEWAT AND ANOTHER (Criminal Appeal No. 2018 of 2013) NOVEMBER 28, 2013 [K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A. K. SIKRI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.307 - Conviction under, by trial courl - In appeal, the offence compounded by High Courl on A B the basis of compromise between parlies on account of C monetary compensation paid to the victim - Held: Offence u/ s.307 is non-compoundable - High Courl compounded the offence by over-looking the 'nature and gravity of the crime' and 'the societal impact' - It accepted the compromise between parlies without application of mind and wrongly took D the view that it was a crime against 'an individual' and not 'the society at large' - Settlement by monetary compensation would not wipe off the crime against the accused - Taking of levient view on serious offences, would defeat the objective of the criminal justice system - Matter remitted to High Courl E to decide the appeal on merit - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.320 - Administration of Criminal Justice. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.320 and 482 - Power under -Distinction between - Discussed. The trial court convicted the accused uls. 307 r/w. s.34 IPC. In appeal, High Court, on the request of the victim and accused parties to compound the offence, acquitted the accused, holding that it was a case where F the fight between the parties had occurred on the spur G and heat of the moment and the assault was a crime 'against an individual', rather than 'against the society at large. Hence the present appeal. 973 H 974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 12 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal and remitting I.he matter to High Court, the Court HELD: 1.1. Criminal law is designed as a mechanism for achieving social control and its purpose is the 8 regulation of conduct and activities within the society. Provisions such as s.307 IPC are not meant, just to protect the individual, but the society as a whole. High Court was not right in thinking that it was only an injury to the person and since the accused persons had received the monetary compensation and settled the C matter, the crime as against them was wiped off. Criminal justice system has a larger objective to achieve, that is safety and protection of the people at large and it would be a lesson not only to the offender, but to the individuals at large so that such crimes would not be committed by D any one and money would not be a substitute for the crime committed against the society. Taking a lenient view on a serious offence like the present, will leave a wrong impression about the criminal justice system and will encourage further criminal acts, which will endanger the E peaceful co-existence and welfare of the society at large. [Para 15) [984-C-F] 1.2. In the instant case, the trial Court held that the accused persons, with common intention, went to the F shop of the injured on the day of the incident, armed with iron rod and a strip of iron and, in furtherance of their common intention, had caused serious injuries on the body of the injured, of which injury number 4 was on his head, which was of a serious nature. PW5, the doctor G stated that injury no. 4 was "grievous and fatal for life". PWS, who had conducted the operation on injuries of the injured as a Neuro Surgeon also fully supported the opinion expressed by PW 5. The gravity of the injuries was also taken note of by the trial court and it had awarded the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment H STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHAMBHU KEWAT 975 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The A High Court completely overlooked the various principles regarding the scope and ambit of ss.482 and 320 Cr.P.C., and has committed a mistake in taking the view that, the injuries were caused on the body of the injured in a fight occurred at the spur and the heat of the moment. While B exercising the power under Section 482, must have "due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime" and "the societal impact". Both these aspects were completely overlooked by the High Court. The High Court in a cursory manner, without application of mind, blindly c accepted the statement of the parties that they had settled their disputes and differences and took the view that it was a crime against "an individual", rather than against "the society at large". [Paras 12-14] [983-8-H; 984-A] 1.3. The High Court was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.