RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The first appellant Ram Lal stands convicted of the offence under Section 326 of the IPC and is undergoing a sentence of three years. The second appellant has been convicted of Section 324 of the IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for two years. The parties have compromised and a petition for compounding has been filed. We cannot accede to the request for compounding in regard to the offence under Section 326, IPC as the same is a non-compoundable offence. Sri D. D. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A. P., JT 1987 (2) SC 361 and Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (1990) Suppl. SCC 681 wherein non-compoundable offences were allowed to be compounded. In Y. Suresh Babu (supra) it was specifically observed that the said case "shall not be treated as a precedent." In the latter case (Mahesh Chand) offence under Section 307, IPC was permitted to be compounded with the following observations :

(3.) We are unable to follow the said decision as a binding precedent. Section 320 which deals with "compounding of offences" provides two Tables therein, one containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded by the person mentioned in it, and the other containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded with the permission of the Court by the persons indicated therein. Only such offences as are included in the said two table can be compounded and none else. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 imposes a legislative ban in the following terms: