SUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed by the first accused in CC.548 of 1980 on the file of the Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mannargudi, challenging the legality and correctness of his conviction under Section 326, I.P.C, and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of Rs. 100 in default to undergo R.I. for one month imposed thereunder by the trial court which were confirmed by the learned Judge, Thanjavur.

(2.) THE Petitioner herein along with one Gunasekaran was tried for offences under Section 326, 341 and 323 I.P.C. on the allegation that on 30th August, 1980 at about 8.30 p.m. at Avikottai village in front of the house of the Headman of the village, the Petitioner herein who was the first accused obstructed and voluntarily caused grievous hurt and simple hurt to P.W.1 with knife and the second accused, since acquitted, after obstructing the said P.W.1 caused simple hurt to him by beating him with a stick. In support of the above charges, six witnesses were examined, Exs. P1 to P4 were marked and M. Os.l and 2 were filed. The plea of the accused is one of denial.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner did not challenge the conviction on merits; but he confined his arguments only with regard to the sentence. I have gone through the judgment of the courts below and I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings of the courts below and the conviction is supported by acceptable evidence. But, according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner herein is none other than the brother -in -law of the victim P.W.1, namely, the Petitioner has married P.W.l's sister, and the Petitioner herein, after the judgment passed by the appellate court, was in custody for nearly 10 days and prior to that also during trial, he would have been in jail for a few days on his being remanded to custody and taking into consideration that the matter has been compounded and also the relationship between the parties, he may be dealt with leniently. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied on a decision reported in Ram Pujan and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, JT 973 S.C.C. (Crl.) 870, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case where the accused were convicted for an offence under Section 326 and sentenced to four years R.I. thereunder, took into account the fact that the parties have compounded the matter and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone in addition to a fine of Rs. 1,500, in spite of the fact that the offence is not compoundable. Applying the ratio laid down in the above decision and also having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also the fact that the parties have compounded the offence, I feel that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and in addition the Petitioner -first accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 inclusive of the fine of Rs. 100 already levied by the trial court, in default to undergo R.I. for two months. Time for payment of fine 2 months.