REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1530 OF 2008

[Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1681 of 2008]

Manoj & Anr. ..... Appellants

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh ..... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

1.Leave granted.

2.Manoj and Bijendra Singh – two brothers have filed this

appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2007

passed in Criminal Appeal No. 631/2000 by the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior whereby and whereunder

1

the conviction of Manoj–appellant No. 1 herein recorded by

Special Judge (NDPS) and Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior

in Sessions Trial No. 161/99 under Section 307 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short ‘IPC’] has been

altered to Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 3 years, whereas conviction of Bijendra

Singh-appellant No. 2 herein (as also accused No.2-Ram

Avtar) from Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC has been

converted to Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Appellant

No. 2 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

years, whereas Ram Avatar has been ordered to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for one year. The conviction of

appellant No. 1 under Section 25 (1B) (a) read with Section 3

of the Arms Act has been set aside.

3.Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that

on 23.01.1999 at about 10:00 a.m. complainant Bahadur

Singh (P.W. 4) along with Rakesh (P.W. 2) and Ram Varan

Singh (P.W. 9) (both hostile witnesses) was excavating sand on

the bank of river Devipura near village Duhia Chak. Appellant

2

No. 2 armed with 12 bore gun, his brother Appellant No. 1

armed with katta (country made fire-arm) and Ram Avatar-

accused holding pharsa in his hand came to the spot and

started abusing the complainant (P.W. 4). P.W. 4 told them

that he was extracting sand from government land. It was

alleged that Ram Avatar-accused gave pharsa blow which

caused injury to the calf-ankle of complainant’s left leg, back

and knee. Appellant No. 2 fired gun shot which hit on the

wrist of right hand of the complainant whereas Appellant No.

1 fired pellets from katta which hit the head and forehead of

Bahadur Singh, who as a result of receiving the injuries fell on

the ground. All the three accused persons thereafter ran away

from the scene of occurrence.

4.Injured Bahadur Singh lodged First Information Report

(Exhibit – P5) on the same day at Police Station, Bijoli. He was

sent to the hospital for medical examination. Investigation of

the case was conducted by Assistant Sub-Inspector Babu Ram

Sharma (P.W. 10) on the spot. During investigation, he seized

one brass cartridge and recorded the statements of the

witnesses. Sub-Inspector Ashok Tiwari (P.W. 14) arrested

3

Appellant No. 1 on 08.02.1999 and recorded his disclosure

statement (Exhibit – P11). Pursuant thereto, ‘Katta’ which was

being used by him at the time of occurrence of the offence,

was produced from a hidden place at the back of ‘kothi’

constructed in the field of Majboot Singh Jaat. Ram Avatar

was arrested on 08.02.1999 and on his statement; pharsa was

recovered from the field of Majboot Singh Jaat. Pistol allegedly

used by Appellant No. 2 was examined by Santosh Singh (P.W.

11) in D.R.P. Line, Gwalior, who certified that the said pistol

was in running condition as per his Report (Exhibit– P18).

Brij Mohan Sharma, Sub-Divisional Magistrate (P.W. 12)

produced on record permission (Exhibit –P19) to prosecute the

accused under the Arms Act. On receipt of Injury Report and

X-Ray Report prepared by Dr. Purshottam Jaju (P.W. 5) and

Dr. Avinash Naidu (P.W. 6) and completion of the

investigation, charge sheet was filed against the above said

three accused in the Court of First Class Magistrate. The

Magistrate committed the trial of the case to the learned

Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge assigned the

trial of the case to the Special Judge (NDPS) –cum- Additional

4

Sessions Judge, Gwalior. The accused persons were charge

sheeted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, Section

25(1B) (a) and Section 3 of the Arms Act. The accused denied

charges and claim to be tried.

5.During the trial, prosecution examined as many as 14

witnesses. The trial court, on analysis of the entire evidence

on record, convicted all the three accused for offence

punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. In

addition, Appellant No. 1 was convicted under Section 25 (1B)

(a) read with Section 3 of the Arms Act. Appellant No. 1 was

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years

and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 307 IPC and one

year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence

under Section 25 (1B) (a) read with Section 3 of the Arms Act.

In default of payment of fine, he has been ordered to suffer

three months’ imprisonment. Appellant No. 2 and Ram Avatar

(Accused Nos. 3 and 2) were sentenced to suffer five years’

rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the

offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. In

default of payment of fine, both the accused persons were

5

ordered to six months’ imprisonment. Out of the fine amount,

a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has been ordered to be paid to the

complainant – P.W. 4.

6.Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 2 preferred Criminal

appeal No. 631/2000 whereas Ram Avatar filed Criminal

Appeal No. 650/2000 before the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior. The learned Single Judge of the

High Court partly allowed the appeals and altered the

conviction from under Section 307 IPC to Section 324 IPC and

imposed the aforesaid sentence upon them. The High Court

acquitted Appellant No. 1 in respect of the offence under the

Arms Act.

7.Now, Appellant No. 1 and his brother Appellant No. 2

have filed this appeal by way of special leave. It appears that

no appeal has been filed by Ram Avatar-accused against the

judgment and order of the High Court.

8.When the matter came up for hearing before this Court

on 10.03.2008, it was submitted by the learned counsel for

the appellants that the parties had agreed to compound the

6

offence and in that view of the matter, notice was issued to the

respondent-State and also to Bahadur Singh - complainant.

9.The appellants have filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

No. 4257/2008 praying for permission to compound the

offence with the complainant. They have inter alia stated that

they and complainant - P.W. 4 are neighbours and are

residing in the same village. After the alleged incident, the

complainant and the appellants have come into close relations

just like family members and they want to reside peacefully in

future without any kind of disruption in their future life.

Having considered their close relations amongst themselves,

one village panchayat was held in the village in which the

complainant has agreed to compound the offence with the

appellants as now he has no grievance against the appellants.

10.Complainant Bahadur Singh has filed an affidavit

(Annexure–P3) dated 16.01.2008. The complainant has stated

in the said affidavit that on his complaint a case was

registered against the appellants Manoj, Bijendra Singh and

accused Ram Avatar which has resulted in the conviction of

the accused persons. He stated that Manoj and Bijendra

7

Singh are residents of his village and the village people have

got their disputes compromised by holding a village panchayat

and now they would desire to live peacefully and that at

present no dispute exists between them.

11.Heard Shri Jai Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the

appellants, Shri R.P. Gupta, learned senior counsel for

respondent-State and Shri Pramod Kumar Yadav for

complainant-Bahadur Singh. The learned counsel for the

complainant stated before us that the complainant has

compromised the case with the appellants and in that view of

the matter their appeal may be accepted.

12.We have examined the provisions of Section 320 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure [for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’] which

deals with compounding of offences. Section 320(1) of the Cr.

P.C. provides that the offences punishable under the Sections

of Indian Penal Code specified in the first two columns of the

Table next following may be compounded by the persons

mentioned in the third column of that Table. Under sub-

Section (2) of Section 320, offences punishable under the

Sections of the Indian Penal Code, specified in the first two

8

columns of the Table next following may, with the permission

of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is

pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the

third column of that Table. Voluntarily causing hurt by

dangerous weapons or means by the accused constitutes an

offence under Section 324 IPC which can be compounded by

person to whom hurt is caused with the permission of the

Court in terms of sub-Section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

13.It requires to be noticed that Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act,

2005 [Act No.25/2005] amended Section 320 of the Code and

in the Table under sub-Section (2) (a) the words “voluntarily

causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means” in column 1

and the entries relating thereto in columns 2 and 3 has been

omitted. But the said amendment by Act No. 25 of 2005 has

not yet been brought into force. Therefore, the offence under

324 is still compoundable with the permission of the Court.

14.The appellants and the complainant are residents of the

same village and with the intervention of the village panchayat

the complainant has compounded the offence with the

appellants and now he has no grievance against them. The

9

appellants and the complainant have categorically stated in

their affidavits filed before us that after the incident they have

developed family relations and they wish to reside peacefully

in the village in future without any kind of disruption in their

future lives.

15.We are satisfied that the complainant has voluntarily

desired to compound the offence with the appellants for

sufficient and genuine reasons stated in their respective

affidavits and such compounding is legal and valid. We allow

the parties to compound the offence under Section 324 IPC.

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4257/2008 stands,

accordingly, allowed. In view of the compounding, the

conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellants, who are

in jail undergoing sentence, shall be set free forthwith, if not

required in any other case. The appeal is disposed of

accordingly.

........................................J.

(R. V. Raveendran)

10

........................................J.

(Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

New Delhi,

September 25, 2008.

11