RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRM. NO. 17344 of 2013 Heard the submissions made on either side. The application is allowed granting exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures A1 and A2. CRM. NO. 17345 of 2013 Heard the submissions made on either side. The application is filed praying for impleadment of the complainant and other injured persons as respondents in view of the compromise struck between the parties. Keeping open the issue as to whether the offence under Sec. 307 could be permitted to be compromised between the parties, the application is allowed and the complainant and other injured persons are permitted to be arrayed as respondents. The amended memo of parties filed by the appellants be taken on record. CRM No. 17346 of 2013 The application is filed praying for permission to compound the offence and record acquittal of the appellants on the basis of compromise struck between the parties on 12.3.2013. Heard the submissions made on either side. The Honourable Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Shambhu Kewat and another (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 149 has categorically held that the compromise between the parties in connection with a crime under Sec. 307 I.P.C would not wipe out the commission of such crime. In other words the offence under Sec. 307 not shown as compoundable even with the permission of the Court under Sec. 320 Crimial P.C. cannot be permitted to be compounded. Therefore, acquittal sought for on the ground that there was a compromise of such offence committed by the accused cannot be recorded. At any rate, reserving the right of the appellants to canvass for reduction in sentence in the light of the compromise struck between the parties, the application stands dismissed. CRA.-S-1534-SB of 2002

(2.) The appellants were convicted for the offence under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34 Penal Code. They have challenged the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

(3.) Heard the submissions made on either side.