RAJU Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.12.2000 made in S.C. No.12/1999 on the file of District Judge, Ootacamund. The appellants herein 1 and 2 are the accused 1 and 2 before the Trial Court. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 2.2.1997 at about 10.00 p.m., at Door No.9/77 of Kelly Estate Labourers Housing quarters, Gudalore within the jurisdiction of the respondent-police, the appellants 1 and 2 attacked P.Ws.1 and 2 namely Periyasamy and Manickam by M.O.1 and M.O.2 knives and caused injuries to both the witnesses, thereby the appellants/A1 and A2 have committed an offence punishable under Sections 324 and 307, I.P.C. respectively.3. In support of the prosecution case, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.1 to 18 and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked. On the side of the appellants, no witness was examined and no document was marked. The Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced by both sides has held that the charge against A1 under Section 324 and the charge against second appellant-A2 under Section 307, I.P.C. have been proved and accordingly the first appellant-A1 was convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo six months, Rigorous Imprisonment and second appellant- A2 was convicted under Section 307, and sentenced to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and the period already undergone by the appellant was ordered to be set off. 4. When the Appeal was taken up today for arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted a Memo of Compromise signed by the appellants 1 and 2/P.Ws.1 and 2, the affected persons in the alleged occurrence, and identified by both the learned counsel.5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon the following decisions, and argued that the offences for which the appellants/accused, have been convicted are only compoundable. I. Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111. II. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Rashid and another, 2005 (7) SCC 56. III. Y. Suresh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2005 (1) SCC 347. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the AIR 1988 SC 2111 reads as follows:

(2.) THE accused were acquitted by the Trial Court, but they were convicted by the High Court for the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. This offence is not compoundable under law. THE parties, however, want to treat it a special case, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is said and indeed not disputed that one of the accused is a lawyer practising in the lower Court. THEre was a counter case arising out of the same transaction. It is said that this case has already been compromised. THE decision of this Court in Suresh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1987 (2) JT 361, has been also referred to in support of the plea for permission to compound the offence.