advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, February 28, 2014

Sec.354 of I.P.C. - Offence took place in the year 2000 - whether compoundable- amendment was taken place in the year 2008 declaring as non-compoundable offence - Both parties are living in peace - victim personally impleaded and sought for compromise free of force, coercion etc., -Apex court permitted them to compound and as such set aside the lower court orders and acquit the accused = Bharti ...Appellant Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. …Respondents = 2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41265

 Sec.354 of I.P.C. - Offence took place in the year 2000 - whether compoundable- amendment was taken place in the year 2008 declaring as non-compoundable offence - Both parties are living in peace - victim personally impleaded and sought for compromise free of force, coercion etc., -Apex court permitted them to compound and as such set aside the lower court orders and acquit the accused =

In the year 2000 when the offence was committed, Section  451  of  the
IPC was compoundable with the permission of  the  Court  by  the  person  in
possession of the house trespassed upon.  At that time Section  354  of  the
IPC was also compoundable with the permission of  the  Court  by  the  woman
assaulted to whom the criminal force was used.   By  the  Code  of  Criminal
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009), Section  354  of  the  IPC  was
made non-compoundable. The question is, therefore, whether in  view  of  the
compromise this Court should permit compounding of the offence.

5.    We notice from  the  judgment  of  the  Sessions  Court  that  in  the
Sessions Court affidavits were filed by respondent No.  2  and  her  husband
stating that the matter was settled.  The  Sessions  Court  did  not  accept
those affidavits and proceeded to convict the  appellant.   The  High  Court
confirmed the conviction.

6.    We are mindful of the fact that Section 354  of  the  IPC  is,  as  of
today, non-compoundable.  But, as noticed by us, it  was  compoundable  when
the instant offence was committed with the permission of  the  court.   Even
then, we would have hesitated to permit compounding of  the  offence.   But,
facts of this case are very  peculiar.   Respondent  No.2  and  her  husband
have, even today, maintained their stand taken in the trial court that  they
have entered into a compromise with  the  appellant.   As  we  have  already
noted, respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit to that effect in this  Court.
 Compromise is, therefore, not an afterthought.  Pertinently,  the  incident
in question  took-place way back in the year  2000.   About  13  long  years
have gone-by. In  her  affidavit  respondent  No.  2  has  stated  that  the
appellant is her neighbour and they are staying peacefully since  2000  till
date.  We are of the opinion that since the appellant and respondent  No.  2
are neighbours it would be in the interest of justice to permit the  parties
to compound the offences.  If the conviction  is  confirmed,  the  relations
may get strained and the peace, which is  now  prevailing  between  the  two
families, may be disturbed. In the peculiar facts of this  case,  therefore,
in order to accord  quietus  to  the  disputes  between  the  appellant  and
respondent No. 2 and  in  the  larger  interest  of  peace,  we  permit  the
appellant and respondent No.  2  to  compound  the  offences.   Accordingly,
offences under Sections  451  and  354  of  the  IPC  are  permitted  to  be
compounded.   The  impugned  judgment  is  set  aside.   The  appellant   is
acquitted. The appellant-Bharti is in jail.  The appellant-Bharti should  be
released forthwith, unless he is required in any other case.
7.    The appeal is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.

2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41265
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, MADAN B. LOKUR

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.509  OF 2014
        [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.371 of 2014]

Bharti                                             ...Appellant

            Vs.

State of Haryana  & Anr.                           …Respondents

                                O  R  D  E  R

1.    Leave granted.

2.    The appellant was  convicted  by  the  Sessions  Judge,  Faridabad  in
Sessions Case No. 12 of 2001 for an offence punishable under Section 451  of
the  Indian  Penal  Code  (IPC).   He  was  sentenced  to  suffer   rigorous
imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-,  in  default,  to  suffer
further rigorous imprisonment for a period of  two  months.   The  appellant
was also convicted under Section 354 of the IPC  and  sentenced  to  undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in  default,  to
further suffer  rigorous  imprisonment  for  two  months.   The  substantive
sentences were ordered to run concurrently.  Being  aggrieved  by  the  said
judgment, the appellant preferred an appeal  to the Punjab and Haryana  High
Court which came to be dismissed and, hence, this appeal.

3.    During the hearing of this appeal, this Court was  informed  that  the
appellant and the complainant Smt. Mukesh w/o Shri Rakesh have entered  into
a compromise.   The  appellant  filed  an  application  for  impleadment  of
complainant Smt. Mukesh w/o Shri Rakesh. On 27/1/2014 this  Court  permitted
impleadment.   Thus,  the  complainant  Smt.  Mukesh  w/o  Shri  Rakesh   is
respondent No. 2 in the present  appeal.   Affidavit   dated  3/10/2013  has
been filed by  the  complainant  stating  that   with  the  intervention  of
respectable persons of the  village  and  relatives  from  both  sides,  the
matter has been compromised between her and the appellant and now  there  is
no dispute between them, at all.  It is further stated that  respondent  No.
2 and the  appellant  are  neighbours  and  are  living  peacefully  and  no
untoward incident has taken place since 2000.  It  is  further  stated  that
respondent No. 2 will have no objection if the FIR lodged  by  her  and  all
the consequential proceedings arising out of  the  said  FIR  including  the
judgments rendered by the  courts  below  against  the  appellant,  are  set
aside.  Respondent No.  2  has  further  stated  that  she  is  filing  this
affidavit  without  any  pressure  or  coercion.  Learned  counsel  for  the
appellant and respondent No. 2 have confirmed that the parties have  entered
into a compromise.

4.    In the year 2000 when the offence was committed, Section  451  of  the
IPC was compoundable with the permission of  the  Court  by  the  person  in
possession of the house trespassed upon.  At that time Section  354  of  the
IPC was also compoundable with the permission of  the  Court  by  the  woman
assaulted to whom the criminal force was used.   By  the  Code  of  Criminal
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009), Section  354  of  the  IPC  was
made non-compoundable. The question is, therefore, whether in  view  of  the
compromise this Court should permit compounding of the offence.

5.    We notice from  the  judgment  of  the  Sessions  Court  that  in  the
Sessions Court affidavits were filed by respondent No.  2  and  her  husband
stating that the matter was settled.  The  Sessions  Court  did  not  accept
those affidavits and proceeded to convict the  appellant.   The  High  Court
confirmed the conviction.

6.    We are mindful of the fact that Section 354  of  the  IPC  is,  as  of
today, non-compoundable.  But, as noticed by us, it  was  compoundable  when
the instant offence was committed with the permission of  the  court.   Even
then, we would have hesitated to permit compounding of  the  offence.   But,
facts of this case are very  peculiar.   Respondent  No.2  and  her  husband
have, even today, maintained their stand taken in the trial court that  they
have entered into a compromise with  the  appellant.   As  we  have  already
noted, respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit to that effect in this  Court.
 Compromise is, therefore, not an afterthought.  Pertinently,  the  incident
in question  took-place way back in the year  2000.   About  13  long  years
have gone-by. In  her  affidavit  respondent  No.  2  has  stated  that  the
appellant is her neighbour and they are staying peacefully since  2000  till
date.  We are of the opinion that since the appellant and respondent  No.  2
are neighbours it would be in the interest of justice to permit the  parties
to compound the offences.  If the conviction  is  confirmed,  the  relations
may get strained and the peace, which is  now  prevailing  between  the  two
families, may be disturbed. In the peculiar facts of this  case,  therefore,
in order to accord  quietus  to  the  disputes  between  the  appellant  and
respondent No. 2 and  in  the  larger  interest  of  peace,  we  permit  the
appellant and respondent No.  2  to  compound  the  offences.   Accordingly,
offences under Sections  451  and  354  of  the  IPC  are  permitted  to  be
compounded.   The  impugned  judgment  is  set  aside.   The  appellant   is
acquitted. The appellant-Bharti is in jail.  The appellant-Bharti should  be
released forthwith, unless he is required in any other case.
7.    The appeal is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.


                             ….…………………………………….J.
                           (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)


                             ………………………………………..J.
                              (MADAN B. LOKUR)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 27, 2014.
-----------------------
5


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.