BHOLA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-appellant Bhola was convicted under Section 308 of IPC and was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for thirty months along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. Co-accused Ravi and Manoj (non-appellants) were convicted under Section 323 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced accordingly vide judgment and order dated 28.08.2014 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh. Aggrieved against the same, present Criminal Appeal was filed on behalf of the appellant Bhola.

(2.) A compounding application has been filed by the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. The compounding application is supported by the joint compromise, duly signed by Bhola (accused-appellant) and Amit Kumar (injured). Appellant Bhola has also filed an affidavit indicating the same. So is Amit Kumar, who has not only filed the affidavit, but is also present before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Alauddin, Advocate. He says that he is not interested in prosecuting the appellant, inasmuch as, the dispute between them has been resolved amicably. Amit Kumar is the injured, who sustained injuries in the incident, which occurred on 14.01.2011. Amit Kumar prays for permitting him to compound the offence alleged and proved against the Bhola (present appellant). He also says that the appellant be exonerated of the charge levelled and proved against him.

(3.) The offence punishable under Section 308 IPC is a non-compoundable offence within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The question is-whether the injured should be permitted to compound such an offence against the convict/appellant or not?