Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8387 of 2013)

Dasan … Appellant

Versus

State of Kerala & Anr.    … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In  this  appeal,  judgment  and  order  dated  17/1/2012  

passed by the Kerala High Court confirming the appellant’s  

conviction  under  Section  326  of  the  Penal  Code  is  under  

challenge.  We have granted application for impleadment of  

Uddesh  who  was  examined  as  PW-2  as  he  had  suffered  

grievous  injury  at  the  hands  of  the  appellant.   He  is,  

therefore, party to the present appeal.

Page 2

3. The appellant is original Accused 1.  He was tried along  

with  seven  others  by  the  Judicial  Magistrate,  First  Class,  

Thrissur  in  Criminal  Complaint  No.23 of  1997 for  offences  

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 read  

with  Section  149  of  the  Penal  Code.   Learned  Magistrate  

convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section  

326 of the Penal Code for having caused grievous hurt by  

dangerous weapon to PW-2 Uddesh and sentenced him to  

undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  three  years.   The  

appellant  was  also  ordered  to  pay  Rs.25,000/-  as  

compensation  to  PW-2  Uddesh.  In  default  of  payment  of  

compensation,  the  appellant  was  to  undergo  simple  

imprisonment for six months.  The appellant was, however,  

acquitted  of  all  other  charges.   The  other  accused  were  

acquitted  of  all  the  charges  leveled  against  them.   The  

appellant carried an appeal to the IIIrd Additional Sessions  

Judge, Thrissur.  The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal.  

Being  aggrieved,  the  appellant  filed  Criminal  Revision  

Petition No.1931 of 2004 before the High Court of Kerala.  By  

the impugned judgment, the High Court while confirming the  

2

Page 3

conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of the Penal  

Code,  reduced  the  sentence  to  eighteen  months  rigorous  

imprisonment.   However,  the  High  Court  increased  the  

compensation awarded to  PW-2 Uddesh by the trial  court  

from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1 lakh.  In default, the appellant was  

ordered  to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  fifteen  

months.  After the impugned judgment, the appellant and  

PW-2 Uddesh have settled the case out of court amicably.  

Since the offence under Section 326 of the Penal Code is not  

a  compoundable  offence,  the  appellant  has  preferred  this  

appeal  urging  that  in  view  of  the  settlement,  this  Court  

should  in  exercise  of  its  powers  under  Article  142  of  the  

Constitution of India compound the offence.  

4. We have heard learned counsel  for  the  parties.   We  

have perused the written submissions filed by the appellant.  

There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant and PW-

2  Uddesh  have  amicably  settled  their  dispute.   Their  

respective counsel have confirmed this fact.  Application is  

filed  by  the  appellant  praying  that  the  offence  may  be  

3

Page 4

compounded.  PW-2 Uddesh has filed his affidavit confirming  

that he and the appellant have amicably settled the case out  

of court and he has no objection to the compounding of the  

case.  

5. Offence  punishable  under  Section  326  of  the  Penal  

Code  is non-compoundable.  There is no dispute about this.  

Learned counsel  for  the appellant contended that,  in fact,  

the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 326 of the  

Penal Code because there is no consistent evidence that the  

appellant  used any  dangerous  weapon.   The evidence on  

record  indicates  that  he  used  a  stick.   Therefore,  the  

appellant could be punished only under Section 325 of the  

Penal  Code  for  voluntarily  causing  grievous  hurt  which  is  

compoundable by the person to whom the hurt  is  caused  

with the permission of the court.  Counsel submitted that in  

the  circumstances,  the  conviction  of  the  appellant  under  

Section 326 of the Penal Code be converted into one under  

Section  325  of  the  Penal  Code  and  the  offence  be  

compounded.   

4

Page 5

6. Section  320  of  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code  (“the  

Code”)  pertains  to  offences  punishable  under  the  Penal  

Code only.  It states which offences can be compounded, by  

whom they can be compounded and which offences can be  

compounded  only  with  the  permission  of  the  concerned  

court.  Sub-sections 3 to 8 thereof further clarify how Section  

320 of the Code operates.  Sub-section 9 thereof states that  

no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this  

section.   The  legislative  intent  is,  therefore,  clear.  

Compounding  has  to  be  done  strictly  in  accordance  with  

Section 320 of the Code.  No deviation from this provision is  

permissible.  

7. In  Gian Singh  v.   State of Punjab & Anr.,1 this  

Court was considering the scope of Section 482 and Section  

320 of the Code.  This Court clarified that in compounding of  

offences,  power  of  criminal  court  is  circumscribed  by  the  

provisions  contained  in  Section  320  of  the  Code  and  the  

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

5

Page 6

court  is  guided  solely  and  squarely  thereby.   This  Court  

described the scope of Section 320 of the Code as under:

“51. Section 320 of the Code articulates public policy with   regard to the compounding of offences. It catalogues the   offences punishable under IPC which may be compounded   by  the  parties  without  permission  of  the  court  and  the  composition of certain offences with the permission of the   court. The offences punishable under the special statutes   are  not  covered  by  Section  320.  When  an  offence  is   compoundable  under  Section  320,  abatement  of  such   offence or an attempt to commit such offence or where the   accused is liable under Section 34 or 149 IPC can also be  compounded in the same manner. A person who is under   18 years of age or is an idiot or a lunatic is not competent   to contract compounding of offence but the same can be  done on his behalf with the permission of the court. If a   person is otherwise competent to compound an offence is   dead,  his  legal  representatives  may  also  compound  the  offence  with  the  permission  of  the  court.  Where  the   accused  has  been  committed  for  trial  or  he  has  been   convicted and the appeal is pending, composition can only   be done with the leave of the court to which he has been   committed or with the leave of the appeal court, as the   case may be. The Revisional Court is also competent to   allow  any  person  to  compound  any  offence  who  is   competent  to  compound.  The  consequence  of  the   composition of an offence is acquittal of the accused. Sub- section (9) of Section 320 mandates that no offence shall   be  compounded  except  as  provided  by  this  section.   Obviously, in view thereof the composition of an offence  has  to  be  in  accord  with  Section  320  and  in  no  other   manner.”

8. It follows from the above discussion that since offence  

under Section 326 of the Penal Code is non-compoundable,  

permission  to  compound  it,  cannot  be  granted.   We,  

6

Page 7

however,  find  some  substance  in  the  submission  of  the  

appellant’s  counsel  that  on  the  basis  of  the  evidence  

adduced in this case, it cannot be said with certainty that the  

appellant used an iron rod to hit PW-2 Uddesh.  Though at  

the trial, the witnesses stated that the appellant used an iron  

rod to assault PW-2 Uddesh, admittedly the iron rod is not  

recovered and what is  recovered is  MO1, a wooden stick.  

We notice from the judgment of the Sessions Court that the  

case of the prosecution was that the appellant struck a blow  

on PW-2 Uddesh with a wooden stick causing injury to his left  

eye.  This story appears to have been not accepted by the  

courts below because the witnesses improved the story in  

the Court that an iron rod was used.   It has also come on  

record  that  PW-2  Uddesh  filed  a  civil  suit  against  the  

appellant for compensation and in that suit, he alleged that  

the appellant beat him with a wooden stick.  The Sessions  

Court has referred to this suit and particularly the plaint [Ex-

D1] which contains the statement that PW-2 was beaten with  

a  wooden  stick  by  the  appellant.   In  our  opinion,  in  the  

circumstances,  it  cannot  be  said  with  certainty  that  the  

7

Page 8

appellant used an iron rod to beat the appellant.  In such a  

situation,  we  are  inclined  to  accept  the  version  which  is  

favourable to  the appellant.   In  the circumstances,  in  our  

opinion, the appellant’s conviction under Section 326 of the  

Penal Code needs to be converted into one under Section  

325  of  the  Penal  Code.   We  accordingly,  convert  the  

conviction of the appellant from one under Section 326 of  

the Penal Code to one under Section 325 of the Penal Code.  

Offence  under  Section  325  of  the  Penal  Code  is  

compoundable by the person to whom the hurt  is  caused  

with the permission of the court.  The question is whether in  

this  case,  permission  to  compound the  offence should  be  

granted because PW-2 Uddesh to whom the hurt is caused  

has  made  a  request  to  this  Court  that  offence  be  

compounded.  

9. In  Ram Shanker  & Ors.   v.   State  of  U.P.,2 the  

complainant and the accused had settled the criminal case  

and an application was made for compounding the offence.  

The accused were convicted for offence under Section 307 of  2 (1982) 3 SCC 388(1)

8

Page 9

the Penal Code.  This Court converted the conviction of the  

appellant from one under Section 307 of the Penal Code to  

that of an offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of  

the Penal Code.  Permission to compound the offence was  

granted and the appellants therein were acquitted.  

10. Having  converted  the  appellant’s  conviction  into  one  

under  Section  325  of  the  Penal  Code,  we  are  inclined  to  

follow the course adopted by this Court in  Ram Shanker  

and grant permission to compound the offence.  The offence  

was  committed  on  24/8/1996.   Eighteen  long  years  have  

passed  thereafter.   The  appellant  and  PW-2  Uddesh  who  

suffered  the  grievous  injury  have  compromised  the  case.  

They  wish  to  accord  a  quietus  to  their  disputes.   We,  

therefore, grant permission to compound the offence under  

Section 325 of the Penal  Code to the appellant and PW-2  

Uddesh, who is added as respondent 2 herein.  The offence  

under Section 325 of the Penal Code is compounded.  The  

impugned judgment  is  set  aside.   The appellant  Dasan is  

9

Page 10

acquitted.  He is on bail.  His bail bond stands cancelled. The  

appeal is disposed of.

.…………………………..J. (Ranjana Prakash  

Desai)

.…………………………..J. (Madan B. Lokur)

New Delhi; January 27, 2014.

1