Summary
Where the appellants, convicted under Sections 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC, had settled with the injured relatives, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to set aside the conviction, since the Section 324 offence was non-compoundable and the incident was a minor family dispute with little impact on society.
Issues
- Whether a conviction that includes a non-compoundable offence (Section 324 IPC) can be set aside on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the injured persons.
- Whether the facts made this a fit case for exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Provisions considered
- Sections 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court noted that the offences under Sections 323 and 325 are compoundable while the offence under Section 324 is non-compoundable, so the compromise could not by itself be given effect through compounding. (¶¶ 2, 5)
- Sections 320 and 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Relying on Ramgopal v. State of M.P., the Court contrasted compounding within the statutory framework of Section 320 with the High Court's inherent power under Section 482, which can be exercised beyond the limits of Section 320. (¶ 6)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaInvoked to set aside the conviction involving a non-compoundable offence, after weighing the nature of the injuries, the relationship between the parties, the voluntary compromise and the limited impact of the incident on society. (¶¶ 6, 7)
Held
- Courts cannot permit compounding of non-compoundable offences on the strength of a compromise, as that would run contrary to the legislative scheme; the exceptions are the High Court acting under Section 482 CrPC and the Supreme Court acting under Article 142 of the Constitution. (¶ 6)
- A compromise in non-compoundable cases has been used to reduce sentence, and in cases between relatives with little social impact to set aside the conviction under Article 142; but this is to be done only in exceptional cases, after considering the nature and effect of the offence on society, the seriousness of the injury, whether the compromise is voluntary, and the conduct of the accused before and after the offence. (¶ 6)
- The incident of 2011 arose from a minor quarrel over tying bullocks on land claimed by the appellants, the parties were close relatives, the injured persons had filed affidavits accepting an unconditional apology, and both sides had undertaken to maintain peace; this was a fit case to set aside the conviction under Article 142. (¶¶ 4, 7)
Result
Appeal disposed of; conviction of the appellants set aside under Article 142 of the Constitution; the appellants, already outside jail, need not surrender.