IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 978 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.177/1995 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.196/1991 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED/APPELLANTS: --------------------- 1. OUSEPH @ PONNAN S/O. PATHROSE, PAKKUKALA VEEDU, ERAVINALLOOR KARA, PUTHUPPALLY. 2. VARGHESE @ MANI, S/O. PATHROSE, PAKKUKALA VEEDU, ERAVINALLOOR KARA, PUTHUPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. KAMAPPU SRI.N.RAGHURAJ FOR R 2 TO R5 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2008 ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.NO.3114/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.978 OF 2001 & Crl.M.C.No.3114 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of August 2008 O R D E R Crl.R.P.No.978 OF 2001 Petitioners in these two cases are common. They are accused in C.C.No.196/91 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kottayam. The trial court found them guilty under Section 324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Section 324 IPC and also to sufer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offence under Section 326 IPC. It was directed that the sentence shall run concurrently. 2. In appeal, the sessions court set aside the order of conviction under Sections 324 and 326 with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. But accused No.1 was found guilty only under Section 324 IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. As regards accused No.2, the sessions court found him guilty under Section 326 IPC and he was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. Crl.R.P.No.978 OF 2001 & Crl.M.C.No.3114 OF 2008 :: 2 :: 3. Criminal R.P.No.978/01 has been preferred by the two accused against the above order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court. It is brought to my notice that the defacto complainant who was examined as DW1 is no more. The legal heirs of the defacto complainant along with petitioner No.1/accused No.1 have filed Crl.M.A.8403/08 seeking composition of the offence under Section 324 IPC. In the said application filed under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is averred that the matter has been settled by the parties out of court and that the legal heirs have no objection in compounding the offence and acquitting accused No.1 for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Respondents 2 to 5 who are stated to be the legal heirs of the defacto complainant as well as accused No.1, apart from their respective counsel, have signed in the compounding petition. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the above application can be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. Petitioner No.1 is acquitted of the offence under Section 324 IPC. Crl.R.P.No.978 OF 2001 & Crl.M.C.No.3114 OF 2008 :: 3 :: Crl.M.C.3114 OF 2008 5. Crl.M.C.3114 OF 2008 has been filed by the two accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash or set aside the conviction and sentence passed against them in the above Calender Case (C.C.196/91). 6. It is brought to my notice that the matter has been settled out of court. Respondents 2 to 5, who are stated to be the legal heirs of deceased defacto complainant, (mother, wife and children) have appeared through Sri.N.Reghuraj, Advocate. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice for respondent No.1. 7. It is stated by learned counsel for the parties that the matter had been settled out of court and the legal heirs of the defacto complainant have no intention to pursue the matter any further. It is further stated by them that they have no objection in accepting the plea for composition and acquitting the accused by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code. Learned counsel has invited my attention to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Crl.R.P.No.978 OF 2001 & Crl.M.C.No.3114 OF 2008 :: 4 :: Punjab [2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC)] in this connection. 8. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, particularly, the fact that the legal heirs of the deceased defacto complainant (respondents 2 to 5) have no objection in compounding the offence under Section 326 I.P.C as against petitioner No.2, I am satisfied that the prayer can be allowed. Therefore, the prayer in Crl.M.C. to grant permission to compound the offence under Section 326 IPC as against petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is allowed. Petitioner No.2 is acquitted. Both Crl.R.P. and Crl.M.C. are disposed of in the above terms. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes