SANTHOSH SADANANDAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been found guilty, convicted and sentencedinaprosecution forthe offencespunishable,inter alia, under Sec.326 of the IPC. The verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence have now become final with the order passed by this Court in Crl.R.P.No.640/98 dated 19/10/06.

(2.) The petitioners, at this belated hour, have come before this Court with this petition under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. The short prayer of the petitioners is that the parties having entered into a compromise and the victim having compounded the offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.326 of the IPC,the composition may be accepted invoking the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. and the sentence imposed on the petitioners may be set aside.

(3.) The request transparently is not maintainable. Neither the decision inB.S. Joshy v. State of Haryana(AIR 2003 SC 1386) nor Sabu George v. Home Secretary (2007 (1) KLT 982) on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitionercan be of any help to the petitioners. The offence is not compoundable. The composition of such a non- compoundable offence is legally unsustainable. No benefit or advantage can be claimed from such composition of the non- compoundable offence by the petitioners. BothB.S. Joshy v. State of Haryana(AIR 2003 SC 1386) andSabu George v. Home Secretary (2007 (1) KLT 982) were rendered under circumstances so totally and vitally different,that the petitioners cannot obviously claim any benefit from those decisions. The petitioners have not chosen so far to challenge the order passed by this Court in revision before the Supreme Court.