MANGILAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question relating to the scope and ambit of S. 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) is raised in this appeal which by order dated 15-10-2003 was limited to the question of grant of compensation as done by the High Court. In view of the aforesaid, and the question of law involved, it is not necessary to go into the factual aspects in detail.

(2.) The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) faced trial along with seven others for alleged commission of offences punishable under Ss. 452, 148, 323 read with Ss. 149, 302 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for shrot the IPC) for allegedly causing death of one Rajinder Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). All the accused persons including the appellant were found guilty for offences relatable to S. 448. They were also found guilty of offence relatable to S. 323 read with S. 149, I.P.C. for having caused injuries to Amar Singh, the informant (P.W. 8). They were acquitted of the charges relatable to S. 148, I.P.C. and were convicted in relation to Sec. 147, I.P.C. Appellant was acquitted of charges relatable to S. 323 read with S. 149 but was convicted under S. 302, I.P.C. The rest of the accused persons were not found guilty in relation to S. 302 read with S. 149, I.P.C. All the accused persons except accused-Babu Lal were acquitted of the charges under Section 323 read with Section 149, I.P.C. Accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under S. 302, I.P.C. and for the rest of offence he was sentenced to RI for six months each. Other accused persons were sentenced to undergo RI for six months each for two offences for which they were found guilty. Accused-Babu Lal in addition was sentenced to undergo for all the three offences for six months RI. Four appeals were filed by the accused persons including the appellant before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court maintained convictions of the appellant. It was noticed that the appellants before the High Court (except the present accused-appellant) have been in custody for about two months. It was noted that the trial Court had not awarded any compensation to the heirs of the deceased and to the injured (P.W. 8). As the High Court did not feel it appropriate to send the rest of the accused persons to jail, direction was given that each of them shall pay compensation @ Rs. 30,000/- in terms of S. 357(3) and (4) of the Code. The accused-appellant was also directed to pay similar compensation. Fixing a proportion by apportionment it was directed that out of the compensation, 2/3rd was to be paid to the heirs of the deceased while rest 1/3rd was to be paid to the injured (P.W. 8). Sentence of all the appellants in respect of Ss. 147 and 148, and in case of accused-Babulal additionally for S. 323 was reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. Only accused-appellant-Mangilal has preferred this appeal which as noted at the outset was restricted to the question of grant of compensation.

(3.) Dr. T. N. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the High Court has not kept in view the object underlying the grant of compensation under S. 357 of the Code. This is a case where no fine was imposed by the trial Court, but the High Court directed payment of compensation. While fixing the quantum the accused persons were not heard thereby violating principles of natural justice. An additional liability was fastened on the accused-appellant, and therefore, the principles of natural justice mandated grant of an opportunity.