(1.) Both the complainant, Smt. Bina Devi and accused-Appellant, Matadeen, are present before this Court. They have been identified by their respective counsel before this Court. Smt. Bina Devi states that she does not wish to pursue the criminal appeal which has been filed by the accused-Appellant against the judgment dated 11.08.2004. According to her, both the accused-Appellant and she are close relatives. She further states that with the help of elderly members of the village, both the parties have come to an understanding that she should not prosecute the appeal and, in fact, she should help the accused Appellant in getting the appeal decided.
(2.) The alleged incident had occurred on 01.07.2003. Although, initially the case was registered under Section 376 IPC, but vide judgment dated 11.08.2004, the Appellant was convicted for offence under Section 354 IPC. Both, when the alleged incident had taken place and when the impugned judgment was passed, the offence under Section 354 IPC was compoundable under Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure However, after the amendment made in the Code of Criminal Procedure, in 2005, the said offence is no longer compoundable. Therefore, an issue was raised by this Court whether after the amendment, the offence continues to be compoundable or not under Section 320 Code of criminal procedure code
(3.) Mr. Shrikant Meena, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, has relied upon the case of Mohd. Abdul Sufan Laskar and Ors. v. State of Assam, 2008 9 SCC 333, in order to argue that in case the offence were compoundable on the date of the incident, then the subsequent amendment made in the Code of Criminal Procedure would not debar the court from compounding the offence. Therefore, he has pleaded that since the complainant and the accused-Appellant have entered into a compromise - a copy of the compromise is available in the Court file - the offence should be compounded and the Appellant should be acquitted for offence under Section 354 IPC.