IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1463 of 2002() ------------------------------ ( SC NO.120/97 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KATTAPPANA CRA.NO.23/99 OF ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE(ADHOC-I) THODUPUZHA) REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. SUNIL @ BALAKRISHNAN, M.M.J. ESTATE, PAZHAYA CHANDA LAYAM, VAGAMON KARA, VAGAMON VILLAGE. 2. THAMPAN, S/O. NANU, THOPPIL HOUSE, M.M.J. ESTATE, PAZHAYA CHANDA LAYAM VAGAMON KARA, VAGAMON VILLAGE. 3. ANIL @ ANI, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, -DO- -DO- -DO-. 4. VINOD, S/O. CHANDRAN, -DO- -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P .No.1463 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioners 1 to 4 are the accused in Sessions Case No.120/1997 of Assistant Sessions Court, Kattappana and appellants in Crl.Appeal No.23/1999 of Additional District and Sessions Judge ( Adhoc - I), Thodupuzha. They were convicted under Sections 307, 341, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC by the trial court and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each under Section 307 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each under Section 341 of IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 11 days under Section 428 of IPC which is allowed to be set off as provided under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. On appeal, the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction, but reduced the substantive sentence imposed on accused 1 and 3 under Section 307 of IPC to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 307 of IPC. As regards the fourth accused, the substantive sentence imposed under Section 307 of IPC is reduced to Crl.R.P.No.1463/2002 Page numbers rigorous imprisonment for one year . The sentence imposed by the trial court on second accused was confirmed. The sentence of fine imposed under Section 341 of IPC was also confirmed. Accused 1 to 4 have come up in revision challenging their conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the prosecution as shaped in evidence before the trial court was that on September 15, 1996 at about 6.45 p.m., the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to kill PW1, the defacto complainant, first accused wrongfully restrained PW1 by catching hold of him and uttered to kill him and the second accused cut PW1 on the left lower arm and the back of head and right palm with a chopper and third accused cut PW1 with the blade of a scissors below his right knee and fourth accused beat PW1 with an iron rod causing injuries described in Ext.P2 wound certificate and that thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. When the accused persons appeared before the committal court, copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to them and as the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was made over to Crl.R.P.No.1463/2002 Page numbers Sessions Court, Thodupuzha from where it was made over to the Assistant Sessions Court, Kattappana. Thereafter it was made over to the trial court for trial and disposal. 4. When the accused persons appeared before the trial court, they pleaded not guilty to a charge under Sections 307, 341, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. PWs 1 to 16 were examined and Exts.P1 to P11 and MOs 1 to 4 were marked on the side of the prosecution. When questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied the allegations and submitted that it was PW1 and his friends who attacked them. No defence evidence was adduced. 5. The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, convicted them thereunder and sentenced them as aforesaid. On appeal, their conviction was confirmed, but the substantive sentence was modified as mentioned above. Now the accused persons have come up in revision challenging their conviction and sentence. 6. When the revision petition came up for hearing, revision petitioners and defacto complainant PW1 filed a petition seeking Crl.R.P.No.1463/2002 Page numbers permission to compound the offence under Sections 341, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC which was allowed by me. It was also stated in that petition that the offence under Section 307 of IPC was also compounded. But the offence punishable under Section 307 is non- compoundable. It has been held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab ( 2008(3) KLT 19 (SC)) that criminal proceedings involving noncompoundable offences can be quashed by accepting the terms of compromise reached between the rival parties, if the question involved in such disputes is purely of a personal nature. In a subsequent decision in Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation ( 2008(3) KLT 769(SC)), the Apex Court has quashed the proceedings on the basis of compromise arrived at between the rival parties where accused persons were charged under Prevention of Corruption Act. 7. This court had occasion to consider the above aspect in Baiju v.S.I.of Police ( 2006(3) KLT 49) and Ettoop v. Kunhikrishnan (2005(2)KLT 429) and held that even in noncompoundable offences if the parties settle the disputes, the proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the interests Crl.R.P.No.1463/2002 Page numbers of justice. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, in the present case also a compromise has been arrived at between the rival parties and the question involved in the dispute is purely of personal nature. That being so, revision petition has to be allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioners under Section 307 of IPC has to the set aside and revision petitioners have to be acquitted. In the result, revision petition is allowed. Conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioners under Section 307 of IPC is set aside . As the offences under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC have already compounded, the revision petitioners are acquitted of all offences alleged against them under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The fine amount, if deposited by the accused persons before the trial court shall be refunded to them. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. Crl.R.P.No.1463/2002 Page numbers