Criminal Appeal No.904-SB of 2000(O&M) v. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, A.A.G., Haryana

of the evidence placed on record by both the parties, learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence as detailed mentioned in the outset of this judgment.

5. Aggrieved from the conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Court seeking setting aside the same.

6. The present appeal was admitted vide order dated

28.09.2000 and their sentence was also suspended during the pendency of the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed in Court affidavit(s) of Rajwant Singh S/o Harnek Singh (one of the injured) and Jagdish Singh S/o Atma Singh.

8. From the contents of the compromise, it is evident that both the parties have compromised the matter and do not want to persuade it further. They are residents of the same village and residing in neighbourhood. The appellants were acquitted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Offence under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code are compoundable.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants made a reference to Section 320 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with the cases concerning compounding of offences. Criminal Appeal No.904-SB of 2000(O&M) -5- ...... “320.Compounding of offences.- (1) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) 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:- (8) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.”

10. Learned counsel for the appellants further relied upon reported case titled Hirabhai Jhaverbhai vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported as 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 824, vide which the Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed the appeal in the following terms: - “

4. From the record it is evident that the incident in question took place on July 23, 1986. Pursuant to the order dated January 29, 2010 passed by this Court in the instant matter, the complainant and injured are impleaded as respondents and are represented through their learned counsel. They have filed affidavit stating that the disputes between the parties have been settled with the intervention of respectable persons of the society. They have also expressed their willingness to compound the offence. This Court finds that after coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 from June 23, 2006 the offence u/s 324 IPC is made non- Criminal Appeal No.904-SB of 2000(O&M) -6- ...... compoundable. However, in this case offence u/s 324 IPC was committed on July 23, 1986 on which date it was compoundable with the permission of the Court. As the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2005 is not applicable to the facts of the case, offence u/s 324 IPC would be compoundable with the permission of the Court. In view of the statement, made by respondent Nos.2 to 4 in their affidavit and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, permission to compound the offence deserved to be granted to the original complainant and the injured.

5. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The two judgments impugned in the appeal are set aside. The injured complainant and two other injured are permitted to compound the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. In view of sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the composition of offence u/s 324 IPC shall have the effect of an acquittal of the appellant with whom the offence has been compounded.”

11. In view of above compromise and affidavit shown by the complainant in its support, the present appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. December 6th, 2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE