Murugadoss vs State

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—This revision has been preferred against the Judgment in C.A. No. 138 of 2004 on the file of Additional

Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Kancheepuram which had arisen out of a Judgment in C.C. No. 2/2001 on the file of District Munsif-

cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur. The accused has been charged u/s 326 of IPC.

The learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur, had furnished the copies u/s 207 of Cr.P.C to the accused on his appearance, the offence was

explained to the accused and questioned the accused pleaded not guilty.

Before the trial Court, P.Ws 1 to 12 were examined and Exs P1 to P6 were exhibited and M.O.1 knife was marked.

When the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, he denied his complicity with the crime.

After going through the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned trial Judge has convicted the accused u/s 326 of IPC and sentenced to

undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and slapped a fine of Rs. 2500/- with default sentence. On appeal preferred by the accused in C.A. No.

138 of 2004 before the Sessions, the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, confirming the findings of the learned trial Judge, which

necessitated the accused to prefer this revision.

When the revision was taken up today, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would represent that the victim and the accused

have settled the matter outside the court and there was a deed of compromise entered into between them. In support of this, the learned Counsel

appearing for the revision petitioner has filed a memorandum of compromise signed by P.W2, the victim and the accused.

Relying on a ratio decidenti in Jetha Ram and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, the learned Counsel would represent that even in a case of similar

nature, the Court is competent to pass a suitable orders on a compromise petition filed by the victim and the accused. The relevant observation in

the above said decision runs as follows:

Before this Court the parties have filed a compromise petition. The offence u/s 326 IPC is not compoundable, as such it is not possible to record

the compromise, but it is well settled that though compromise cannot be recorded for a non-compoundable offence, but the effect of compromise

can be taken into consideration while awarding the sentence.

Under such circumstances, in lieu of the compromise petition filed by the parties, I am of the view that while confirming the conviction, sentence

alone can be modified as per the principles laid down in the above said ratio decidenti in Jetha Ram and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan,

In fine, the revision is dismissed and the conviction by the first appellate Court in C.A. No. 138 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions

Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Kancheepuram u/s 326 of IPC is confirmed but the sentence alone is modified to that of the period already

undergone. However the fine levied by the trial Court which was confirmed by the first appellate Court will sustain. Out of the fine amount of Rs.

2500/-, Rs. 2000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the victim P.W.2 u/s 357(1) of Cr.P.C.