REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1343 OF 2008
ARISING OUT OF
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 3887 OF 2008
MD. ABDUL SUFAN LASKAR & ORS. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM ... RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
C.K. THAKKER, J.
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is filed against an
order of conviction and sentence recorded by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi on
September 21, 2002, confirmed by the Sessions
Judge, Hailakandi on May 26, 2003 and also
confirmed by the High Court of Assam on July
31, 2007.
2
3. Few relevant facts of the case are
that on June 15, 1995, according to the case of
the prosecution, one Moinul Haque Laskar lodged
a First Information Report (FIR) before the
Officer-in-charge, Hailakandi Police Station.
In the FIR, it was alleged by the informant
complainant that his brother Abdul Haque Laskar
had gone to cultivate land early in the morning
at about 6.30 a.m. Eight accused as mentioned
in the FIR armed with deadly weapons attacked
Abdul Haque Laskar and caused grievous injuries
on different parts of his body. On hearing hue
and cry of the complainant Moinul Haque Laskar
and his brothers, several persons arrived
there. The accused persons fled away and the
injured was taken to hospital. On receiving
FIR, Officer-in-charge of Hailakandi Police
Station registered Case No. 195 of 1995 against
the accused for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 147, 325 and 506 of
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and started
investigation. During the course of
3
investigation, several statements came to be
recorded. The injured was examined by the
Medical Officer and a charge sheet was
submitted for offences punishable under
Sections 147, 323, 326 and 506, IPC against all
the accused.
4. The charge was read over and explained
to the accused who pleaded `not guilty’ and
claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order
to prove the case against the accused, examined
five witnesses including injured Abdul Haque
Laskar, Medical Officer and Investigating
Officer. The `defence’ did not examine any
witness. In the statement under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as `the Code’), the
accused denied the incident and involvement in
any manner whatsoever.
5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hailakandi vide his judgment and order dated
September 21, 2002, held the case against
accused proved for offences punishable under
4
Sections 147 and 324, IPC. On sentence,
however, the learned Magistrate noted that
accused Islam Uddin (accused No.5), Sahab Uddin
(accused No.6), Aftab Uddin (accused No.3) and
Fakar Uddin (accused No.2) were young. He,
therefore, thought it fit to grant benefit of
releasing them on admonition since they did not
appear to have committed any offence in past
nor they were involved in any offence. The
learned Judicial Magistrate, however, convicted
Abdul Subhan (accused No.1), Abdul Wahid
(accused No.7), Abdul Kuddus (accused No.8) and
Muslim Uddin (accused No.4) for offences
punishable under Sections 147 and 324, IPC. For
an offence punishable under Section 147, IPC,
the learned Magistrate ordered the abovestated
accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month and a fine of Rs.100 each, in default,
simple imprisonment for five days. For the
offence punishable under Section 324, IPC, he
ordered them to undergo simple imprisonment for
two months and a fine of Rs.200/- each, in
5
default, simple imprisonment for ten days. The
sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
6. Being aggrieved by the order of
conviction and sentence, all the accused
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2002. The
learned Sessions Judge upheld the order of
conviction as well as sentence and dismissed
the appeal.
7. The four accused who were ordered to
undergo substantive sentence, then preferred
Criminal Revision No. 331 of 2003. The High
Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the
revision holding that no illegality could be
said to have been committed by both the Courts
below. The said order is challenged in the
present appeal.
8. On April 1, 2008, the Hon’ble Chamber
Judge granted the prayer for exemption from
surrendering in view of short sentence imposed
on the appellants. The matter was then placed
before the Court for admission hearing on April
28, 2008. On that day, it was stated by the
6
learned counsel for the appellants that the
parties had entered into an amicable settlement
and though the offence punishable under Section
324, IPC has now been made non-compoundable, at
the time when the offence was committed, it was
compoundable. The Court, in view of the above
statement, issued notices by making them
returnable early. Notice was also ordered to be
issued to injured Abdul Haque Laskar. Notices
were accordingly served on respondents.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the parties have compromised the
matter, entered into settlement and an
application is made to that effect praying
therein that compounding may be ordered for
offences punishable under Sections 147 and 324,
IPC and an appropriate order in accordance with
law may be passed. Compromise deed is also
placed on record signed by the parties wherein
it is expressly stated that the injured Abdul
7
Haque Laskar has voluntarily given his consent
without any force, threat, coercion, undue
influence, pressure etc., from any quarter
whatsoever for making the joint compromise
petition before this Court. A prayer is,
therefore, made by all the parties to compound
the offence and acquit the three appellants who
have approached this Court.
11. Now it is no doubt true that every
crime is considered to be an offence against
the society as a whole and not only against an
individual even though an individual might have
suffered thereby. It is, therefore, the duty of
the State to take appropriate action against
the offender. It is equally the duty of a Court
of law administrating criminal justice to
punish a criminal.
12. But there are offences and offences.
Certain offences are very serious in which
compromise or settlement is not permissible.
8
Some other offences, on the other hand, are not
so serious and the law may allow the parties to
settle them by entering into a compromise. The
compounding of an offence signifies that the
person against whom an offence has been
committed has received some gratification to an
act as an inducement for his abstaining from
proceeding further with the case [Vinjay
Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Sewa Sahkari Bank Ltd.,
(2008) 2 SCC 305].
13. So far as the Code is concerned,
Section 320 deals with offences which are
compoundable, either by the parties without the
leave of the Court or by the parties but only
with the leave of the Court. Sub-section (1) of
Section 320 enumerates the offences which are
compoundable without the leave of the Court,
while sub-section (2) of the said section
specifies the offences which are compoundable
with the leave of the Court. Sub-section (9) of
Section 320 declares; “No offence shall be
9
compounded except as provided by this section”.
It is thus clear that offences not referred to
in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 320 and
not included in the Table are not compoundable.
Similarly, offences punishable under laws other
than the Indian Penal Code also cannot be
compounded.
14. Sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the
Code expressly enacts that where the
composition of an offence under this section is
recorded by the Court, it shall have effect of
an acquittal of the accused with whom the
offence has been compounded.
15. Under the Code, as originally enacted
in 1973, an offence punishable under Section
324, IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous
weapons or means) was made compoundable with
the leave of the Court. The said entry read as
under:
10
TABLE
Offence Section of Person by whom
the Indian offence may be
Penal Code compounded
Applicable
1 2 3
Voluntarily 324 The person to
causing hurt by whom hurt is
dangerous caused.
weapons or
means.
16. It is no doubt true as stated by the
learned counsel for the appellants even at the
time of preliminary hearing of this matter that
by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment)
Act, 2005 (Act 25 of 2005) the above entry has
been deleted. In other words, an offence of
voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons
or means punishable under Section 324, IPC is
no more compoundable. The Amendment Act of 2005
came into force from June 23, 2006.
17. As we have already noted, according to
the prosecution, the appellants had committed
11
the offence on June 15, 1995. In view of the
above fact, in our opinion, Act 25 of 2005 has
no application to the facts of the case. We,
therefore, see no ground to refuse permission
as sought by the parties who have compromised
the offence which was compoundable under the
Code as it stood in 1995. If it is so,
compounding can be permitted and accused
(appellants) can be acquitted.
18. For the foregoing reasons, in our
opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed and
is accordingly allowed by holding that since
the matter has been compounded by compromise
between the parties and there is no illegality
therein, such compounding can be permitted by
the Court. The appellants are, hence, entitled
to acquittal.
19. The order of conviction and sentence
recorded by all Courts is hereby set aside and
12
the appellants are ordered to be acquitted of
the charges levelled against them.
…………………………………………………J.
(C.K. THAKKER)
NEW DELHI, …………………………………………………J.
AUGUST 25, 2008. (DALVEER BHANDARI)
