RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) THE first appellant Ram Lal stands convicted of the offence under section 326 of the IPC and is undergoing a sentence of three years. The second appellant has been convicted of section 324 of the IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for two years. The parties have compromised and a petition for compounding has been filed. We cannot accede to the request for compounding in regard to the offence under section 326 IPC as the same is a non - compoundable offence. Shri D.D. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel, invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A.P. [JT (1987) 2 SC 361] and Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan [1990 Supp. SCC 681 : 1991 SCC (Cri.) 159] wherein non -compoundable offences were allowed to be compounded. In Y. Suresh Babu (supra) it was specifically observed that the said case ''shall not be treated as a precedent". In the latter case (Mahesh Chand) (supra) offence under section 307 IPC was permitted to be compounded with the following observations :

(3.) IT is apparent that when the decision in Mahesh Chand (supra) was rendered, the attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to the aforesaid legal prohibition. Nor was the attention of the learned Judges who rendered the decision in Y. Suresh Babu (supra) drawn. Hence those were decisions rendered per incuriam. We hold that an offence which law declares to be non -compoundable even with the permission of the Court cannot be compounded at all. The offence under Section 326 IPC is, admittedly, non -compoundable and hence we cannot accede to the request of the learned counsel to permit the same to be compounded.