MUHAMMED HAJI Vs. MUHAMMEDKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the accused against the judgment in Crl.A.340 of 2003 of Sessions Judge, Manjeri. The accused were charge sheeted in C.C.84 of 1995 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi under Section 143, 147, 148, 448, 324, 326 r/w 149 IPC. Learned Magistrate after trial convicted A1, A2, A3, A5, A6, A9, A10 and A11 under Section 143, 147, 448, 323 325 IPC r/w 149 IPC and they were acquitted for offence punishable under Section 148, 324 and 326 IPC. The accused were sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month under Section 143 IPC, simple imprisonment for three months under Section 147 IPC, simple imprisonment for one month under Section 448 IPC, simple imprisonment for three months under Section 323 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 325 IPC. A4, A7 and A8 are absconding and their case was split up and refiled in the trial court. Against that, they preferred the above criminal appeal before Sessions Court, Manjeri where the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence against A7, A8, A10 and A11 and they were acquitted. The conviction and sentence against A1 to A3 and A5, A6 and A9 are confirmed. Being aggrieved by that, they preferred this revision petition.

(2.) The charge against the accused is that on 28.8.1993 at 9 am, accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the verandah of the house of PW1 Mohammed Kutty and A1 to A8 attacked him with sticks. A1, A9 to A11 attacked his wife also with sticks and thereby committed the offence. PW1 and PW2 sustained serious injuries and they were removed to Government Hospital, Tirur. Thanoor police took their statement but they failed to register an F.I.R. In the circumstances, PW1 filed the complaint in the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi, where the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and tried the accused. To prove the offence, complainant examined PW1 to PW5 and his documents were marked as Ext.P1 to P3. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them. The accused examined DW1, DW2 and DW3 and marked Ext.D1 to D6. Trial court convicted the accused.

(3.) When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for revision petitioners submitted that they have settled the matter out of court and no grievance subsists now. Revision petitioners were present before this court on 1.9.2016. During pendency of appeal, first revision petitioner died. S.I, Parappanangadi produced the Death Certificate, which was marked as Ext.C1. PW1 and PW2 are also present and submitted that they have settled the matter through the intervention of mediators and no further grievance subsists. Both parties filed Crl.M.A.5582 of 2016. According to section 320(1) Cr.PC, 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. According to Section 320 (2) Cr.PC, 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, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table. Therefore it is seen that an offence specified in column 1 and 2 of the table can be compounded by the person specified in the third column of the table. It is immaterial whether such a person was a complainant or not or whether the case was instituted upon a police report or on a private complaint. But after conviction it may be noted that the permission of the court is necessary, even in case of offence covered under Section (1).