STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SHINDER PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON account of an accident between truck No. PJB 4197 being driven by Shinder Paul and a scooter driven by Ravinder Singh with Nirmal Singh on the pillion seat, the two scooter riders were injured. A case under Sections 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Charge against the accused was framed under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the trial, both the injured made an application to the court for permission to compound the offence. The permission was granted. Both the injured as well as the accused made a statement having compounded the offence by entering into a compromise. On the basis of the said compromise, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal after obtaining leave under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code had not been made compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It would follow that the said offence was not compoundable. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code could not possibly be considered to be offences of the same kind. These were mentioned in two separate Chapters of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) WE are not impressed by the argument. The offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code consists of rash or negligent driving, etc. , on a public way. The offence is punishable up to six months' imprisonment or with fine up to Rs. 1,000/- or with both. The offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, on the other hand, consists of causing grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or personal safety of others. The offence is punishable with imprisonment up to two years or a fine up to Rs. 1,000/- or with both. It will be seen that the offence under Section 338 is an aggravated form of the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. Even otherwise, the courts always lean in favour of compromise and even in cases which are not compoundable and somewhat less serious, the courts do give substantial effect to the compromise between the parties and give substantial relief to the convicted person on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. It was observed by the Supreme Court in Shakuntala Sahni v. Kaushalya Sahni 1979 UJ (SC) 478, that the finest hour of the justice is the hour of compromise when parties after burying the hatchet reunite by a reasonable and just compromise. We do not, therefore, find any justification to interfere in the order passed by the learned trial court and accordingly dismiss the appeal.