Jharkhand High Court Allows Compounding Of Offences At Appellate Stage, Sets Aside Judgment Of Conviction

The Jharkhand High Court recently allowed an appeal against conviction under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC for causing grievous hurt by use of dangerous weapons, and set aside the order of Sessions Judge following compromise between the parties.

Justice Navneet Kumar noted,

"In a criminal case where offences are of pure personal nature, not heinous or brutal and not adversely affecting the society at large being a private nature and the parties concerned have willingly and voluntarily settled their differences amicably, it would be in the fitness of things that non-compoundable offences can be allowed to be compounded, of course with righteousness and probity irrespective of the fact that the trial has already been concluded and the post conviction compromise has taken place at the appellate stage."

An appeal was preferred against a judgment convicting the appellants for offences punishable under Section 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing the two appellants to imprisonment for three years and seven years, respectively.

In the prosecution's story, the informant saw a group of people armed with weapons like lathi, sword, bhala, and sabbal, leading to assault by the appellants. Based on the said information, an FIR was drawn under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, and 307 of IPC, and an investigation of the case commenced.

After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, and charges were framed against the appellants. After the trial, both the appellants named above were convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge.

The question before the Court was whether it could compound the offences under sections 326 and 324 of IPC, which are non-compoundable.

The Court referred to the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, where it was held as follows,

"Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor."

After thoroughly examining the propositions of law, the Court noted that it is now well settled that a Criminal Court cannot compound the non-compoundable offences under section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

However, it noted that there is a scope of compounding the offences by invoking inherent powers of the High Court vested in it under section 482 of Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any court and/or to secure the ends of justice. In doing so, it noted that the following considerations must be taken into consideration- the circumstances surrounding the incident, the manner and mode under which the compromise has been arrived at between the parties, and further due consideration to the nature and seriousness of the offence, in addition to the conduct of the accused, before and after the incident.

However, it also remarked that such power must be exercised very carefully, diligently, and cautiously as observed by the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.

On appreciation of facts, the Court noted a long history of hostility between the parties, including prosecution and defence concerning the personal nature of the dispute between the parties.

Moreover, it perused the joint interlocutory application on behalf of the appellants, informant, and injured persons to note that they have entered into a compromise. All the parties concerned have mutually settled their dispute once and for all, and they wanted to maintain good and healthy relations being neighbors. On the intervention of close relatives and well-wishers of both the parties, including the appellants and informant, people compromised the matter. The informant and injured persons do not want to proceed with the instant appeal.

Given the mutual compromise, it was held that the dispute is purely personal as neither public policy is involved nor any trace of brutality or ruthlessness in the purported offence nor affecting the peace, tranquillity, and consciousness of the society. Therefore, it is a fit case to grant relief.

The Court allowed the compounding of the instant appeal, noting that the incident took place more than 20 years back and both the parties, neighbors, are living in a harmonious atmosphere. It set aside the order of conviction and, for the ends of justice, allowed the offences punishable under sections 324 and 326 to be compounded under the circumstances of the present case.

Case Title: Ganesh Choudhary & Anr v. The State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 25

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order