STATE Vs. CYABRIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point for consideration in this revision petition filed by the State challenging that portion of the judgment by which the respondent was permitted to compound the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is whether a Trial Court can permit compounding of offences after convicting the accused for the said offences.

(2.) THE respondent (the accused 1) and two others (the accused 2 and 3) were tried by the Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court, Bellary, in S. C. No. 11 of 1998 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution allegation was that on 24-8-1997 at about 6. 30 A. M. , at the house of c. W. 1, the respondent in furtherance of his intention commonly shared by the accused 2 and 3, attempted to commit the murder of the complainant by attacking him with a sickle. It was further alleged that he assaulted C. Ws. 2 and 3 and caused injuries to them and that in that event, he used vulgar language against C. Ws. 1 to 3.

(3.) ON behalf of the prosecvition, twelve witnesses were examined and on conclusion of the trial, the learned Presiding Officer of the Fast Track court delivered the judgment acquitting the accused 2 and 3 of all the offences, but convicting this respondent of the offences punishable under sections 323 and 325 of the IPC. Thereafter a joint application was moved by the respondent and P. Ws. 1, 2 and 7 under Section 320 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reporting compounding of an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and praying for permission to compound the offence under Section 325 of the IPC. The learned Judge permitted compounding of the offences and in the result ordered that the respondent stood acquitted under Section 320 (8) of the Code of criminal Procedure of both the offences. It is that portion of the order, by which the respondent was acquitted after conviction, that has been challenged in this petition.