INAM AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Amar Saran, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Jitendra Singh, learned A.G.A. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.8.84 passed by Sri R.L. Soni III Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 88 of 1983 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment respectively.

(2.) I have heard Sri Amar Saran, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellants has invited attention to the fact that the appellants and the injured respondent have entered into a compromise which is contained in affidavit and the appellants have filed the application for permission to compound the offences. This application along with the affidavit was sent to the C.J.M. Saharanpur for verification. These documents have been received back after due verification of the compromise with the report of the C.J.M. Saharanpur. There is no doubt that the accused and the injured have compromised their differences and have developed good relations as they belong to the same caste. This compromise will be conducive to peace between the parties and would be in the interest of the society. However, no permission to compound the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. can be granted because the offence is not compoundable under law. Therefore, the application for permission to compound the offence is rejected.

(3.) IN respect of his contention, the learned counsel has invited attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampoojan v. State of U.P. : AIR 1973 S.C. 2418. This case related to an offence under Section 326 I.P.C. and the accused were convicted and sentenced to four years R.I. under Section 326 I.P.C. by the Sessions Court. During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court an application along with a compromise affidavit was filed which was sent by the High Court for verification to the lower court. After verification of the compromise the High Court refused the permission on the ground that the offence was non -compoundable. Nevertheless the High Court reduced the sentence to two years. The Supreme Court, in appeal, while reducing the sentence to the period already undergone (which was four months) held that the fact of compromise would be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence even if the offence for which the accused were sentenced was non -compoundable.