IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
Matadeen V/s. State of Rajathan
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.892/2004
S.B. Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure
Date of Order :: February 15, 2011
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN
Mr. Shrikant Meena for the appellant.
Mr. Javed Chaudhary PP for the State.
Mr. Ashish Sharma for
Mr. Pankaj Gupta for the complainant.
REPORTABLE
Both the complainant, Smt. Bina Devi and accused-appellant, Matadeen, are present before this court. They have been identified by their respective counsel before this Court. Smt. Bina Devi states that she does not wish to pursue the criminal appeal which has been filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment dated 11.08.2004. According to her, both the accused-appellant and she are close relatives. She further states that with the help of elderly members of the village, both the parties have come to an understanding that she should not prosecute the appeal and, in fact, she should help the accused appellant in getting the appeal decided.
The alleged incident had occurred on 01.07.2003. Although, initially the case was registered under Section 376 IPC, but vide judgment dated 11.08.2004, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 354 IPC. Both, when the alleged incident had taken place and when the impugned judgment was passed, the offence under Section 354 IPC was compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, after the amendment made in the Code of Criminal Procedure, in 2005, the said offence is no longer compoundable. Therefore, an issue was raised by this Court whether after the amendment, the offence continues to be compoundable or not under Section 320 Cr.P.C?
Mr. Shrikant Meena, the learned counsel for the appellant, has relied upon the case of Mohd. Abdul Sufan Laskar & Ors. V/s. State of Assam [(2008) 9 SCC 333], in order to argue that in case the offence were compoundable on the date of the incident, then the subsequent amendment made in the Code of Criminal Procedure would not debar the court from compounding the offence. Therefore, he has pleaded that since the complainant and the accused-appellant have entered into a compromise – a copy of the compromise is available in the Court file – the offence should be compounded and the appellant should be acquitted for offence under Section 354 IPC.
Mr. Ashish Sharma appearing on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel for the complainant, has neither challenged the compromise entered into between the parties, nor has challenged the position taken by the learned counsel for the appellant.
In case of Mohd. Abdul Sufan Laskar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with a case wherein the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 324 IPC. The said offence was committed on 15.06.1995 and the appellant was convicted both by the learned trial Court and his conviction was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Assam. A question arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when the complainant and the appellant have entered into a compromise during the pendency of the appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, whether the offence under Section 324 IPC could be compounded or not considering the fact that after the amendment of 2005, the offence under Section 324 IPC was no longer compoundable? In the aforementioned case, the Apex Court clearly held that notwithstanding the amendment made in 2005, but considering the fact that the offence had occurred prior to the said amendment, the amendment does not debar the Court from compounding the offence, and from acquitting the accused. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Mohd. Abdul Sufan Laskar (supra). In the present case, as noted above, the alleged incident had occurred on 01.07.2003 i.e., prior to the amendment of 2005. However, the parties have entered into a compromise after the amendment of 2005. But, considering the principle, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has no hesitation in compounding the offence under Section 354 IPC.
Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 11.08.2004 is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 354 IPC. Hence, the appeal is, hereby, allowed.
(R.S.CHAUHAN)J.
A.Asopa/-