Vital Body Parts Not Receiving Injuries Doesn't Mean Offence Isn't Heinous: Allahabad HC Refuses To Quash Attempt To Murder Case Based On Compromise

Taking note of the facts of the case, the bench of Justice JJ Munir observed that all gunshot injuries were sustained on the limbs and not on the torso or any vital part of the complainant's body, but that does not show that the offence was not heinous or there was no intention to kill.

“If a man shoots another, inflicting as many as four gunshot wounds, notwithstanding the fact that the injuries were sustained on the limbs, where possibly, they would not have produced a fatal result, it does not detract in the least from the gravity of the crime. The fact that the victim did not receive injuries to one or other vital parts of the body can only be credited to the victim's good luck or providence smiling on him,” the Court added.

Consequently, opining that it is not an offence which is in the domain of a kind of private dispute between parties, about which the society may have no substantial concern, the Court refused to quash the case in the exercise of its powers under Section 482.

The case in brief

Accused Narendra Pratap Singh moved the Court seeking to quash 307 IPC offence registered against him on the ground that he and the complainant/victim, who are related to each other, have entered into a compromise.

Earlier, the Additional Sessions Judge rejected the compromise application, holding that in this case, the charge against the accused is heinous in nature and is not compoundable.

Court’s observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the ASJ could not have allowed the compromise application herself, because the offence is not compoundable and all she could do was to verify the compromise, on which, the High Court could have acted.

With regard to the quashing of prosecutions by the Trial Court, where parties have compromised in the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, the Court referred to Apex Court’s ruling in the case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein it was observed thus:

“…while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not, the High Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely, whether injuries are caused at the vital/delicate parts of the body) and the nature of weapons used, etc. On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement between the parties.”

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that in the instant case, four gunshot injuries were caused on the limbs and not on the torso or any vital part of the complainant's body, however, this fact did not mean that the offence was not heinous or there was no intention to kill.

Consequently, the court refused to quash the prosecution in the instant case noting that the offence in question involved the conscience of the society.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Surya Pratap Singh Parmar, Vandana Singh Parmar

Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Preyansh Mishra

Case title - Narendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9973 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 111

Click Here To Read/Download Order