VALSAN NELLANIKUNNEL VEEDU, DWARAKA,, NALLOORNADU P.O. Vs. STATE MANANTHODY POLOICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC, PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises in this case is whether a non-compoundable case can be compounded under Sec. 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') Revision petitioners, who are the accused, have preferred this revision petition against the concurrent judgment in Crl.A.33 of 2003 of Sessions Judge, Wayanad. They were charge sheeted in CC.193 of 2001 before Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Mananthavady under Sec. 323, 326 read with 34 IPC. After trial the learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Sec. 323 and 326 read with 34 Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Sec. 323 r/w 34 IPC, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months with fine of Rs.2000.00 under Sec. 326 r/w 34 IPC, in default, simple imprisonment for six months. Against that accused preferred a criminal appeal before Sessions Judge, Wayanad where the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, they preferred this revision petition.

(2.) The charge against the accused is that on 11.11.1996 at 6.30 am, while PW1 was proceeding to the Milk Society, the accused hide near a tree, jumped in front of him, A2 beat with a handle spade, others beat with hands and kicked him, as a result he sustained serious injuries. For this, Mananthavady police registered a crime and after completing investigation, they filed a final report before the trial court. To prove the offence, prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Ext.P1 to P6. The handle spade was admitted as MO1 by the trial court. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence and the trial Magistrate convicted them.

(3.) When the revision petition came up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the injured is their uncle and they have settled the matter out of court and filed Crl.M.A.4022 of 2016 before this court. I have perused the compromise petition in which both parties have signed. Learned Public Prosecutor identified the injured PW1. Both parties submitted that PW1 is their uncle and they paid Rs.50,000.00 to him as compensation under the settlement. According to Sec. 320(1) Cr.P.C, offences punishable under Penal Code specified in the first two columns of the table next following may be compounded by the person mentioned in the third column of that table. According to Sec. 320(2) Cr.P.C, offences punishable under Penal Code specified in the first two columns of the table next following may be with permission of the court, before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the person mentioned in the third column of that table.