LexSURINDRA NATH MOHANTHY AND ANR. versus STATE OF ORISSA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. 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 of the 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 Peti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.