Ram Kumar Goutam vs State of M.P.

S.P. Khare, J.—Appellant Ram Kumar Goutam has been convicted u/s 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution the offence u/s 324 I.P.C., alone is made out. It is further submitted that complainant Krishnakumar Turkar (PW-8) and the accused had submitted an application u/s 320 Cr.P.C., before the trial Court for permission to compound the offence. It is further pointed out that Krishnakumar Turkar (PW-8) in his deposition in para 4 has stated that he has entered into compromise with the accused subject to the approval of the Court and therefore, the act of the accused should be condoned.

The evidence on record has been examined in light of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. Krishna Kumar Turkar (PW-8) has deposed that he was Field Officer in the State Bank of India and accused Ram Kumar Goutam was Cashier-cum-Clerk in the same branch. On 21-5-1994 at 8.00 A.M., he was going to meet the Manager of the Bank at his residence. On his way the accused met him and abused him. He caused injuries to him by a Lathi and then dealt a knife blow on his abdomen. He became unconscious. He lodged the report (Ex. P-15) at the police station. He was examined by Dr. Mahendra Kumar Ahirwar (PW-7). He has deposed that he found an incised wound over abdomen 1.5" in length and 1/4 cm wide. It was skin deep. He also found two contusions on his left knee and right leg. His report is Ex. P-10. He has described injury No. 1 as grievous. In para 8 of his deposition he has stated that the injury No. 1 i.e., the incised would was not sufficient to cause death, but the death could result from the neurogic shock as a result of this injury. In cross examination he has stated that the patient was discharged from the hospital on 23-5-1994. Thus, he remained in the hospital for two days.

After dispassionate consideration of the evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the offence u/s 324 I.P.C. alone is made out. The accused did not intend to cause the death of the complainant. There was no attempt to commit murder. The nature of injury sustained by the complainant is simple and not grievous. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant u/s 307 I.P.C. is set aside.

The conduct of the accused is highly reprehensible. Being a cashier in the State Bank of India it was a sheer act of indiscipline on his part to cause injury to the Field Officer of the Bank by attacking him with a knife. It is the complainant Krishna Kumar Turkar (PW-8) who has shown the magnanimity of entering into a compromise with the accused. There is an application on record for permission to compound the offence. Krishna Kumar Turkar (PW-8) has stated on oath that he has signed on this application for permission to compound the offence. In view of daya and karuna shown by the complainant and in the hope that the accused will behave properly in future, permission to compound the offence u/s 324 I.P.C. is granted. Where in appeal conviction for non-compoundable offence is altered to that of a compoundable offence permission to compound can be granted : Ram Shankar v. State of U.P. . There is another application on record of the trial Court signed by both the parties expressing therein that they have compromised the case. That composition is recorded as that would remove the bitterness and rancour between the complainant and the accused. It has been observed in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and Others, , that finest hour of the justice is the hour of compromise when parties after burying the hatchet re-unite by a reasonable and just compromise.

The result is that this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside. The effect of the compounding of the offence would have the effect of acquittal of the appellant as provided in Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. It is clarified that this will be ''acquittal'' for all purposes and remove the stigma attaching to the appellant by the judgment of the trial Court. The amount of fine be refunded to the appellant if it has been deposited by him.