Subramanian vs State

K.M. Natarajan, J.—This revision is directed by the first accused in CC.548 of 1980 on the file of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Mannargudi, challenging the legality and correctness of his conviction u/s 326, I.P.C, and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and a

fine of Rs. 100 in default to undergo R.I. for one month imposed thereunder by the trial court which were confirmed by the learned Judge,

Thanjavur.

The Petitioner herein along with one Gunasekaran was tried for offences u/s 326, 341 and 323 I.P.C. on the allegation that on 30th August,

1980 at about 8.30 p.m. at Avikottai village in front of the house of the Headman of the village, the Petitioner herein who was the first accused

obstructed and voluntarily caused grievous hurt and simple hurt to P.W.1 with knife and the second accused, since acquitted, after obstructing the

said P.W.1 caused simple hurt to him by beating him with a stick. In support of the above charges, six witnesses were examined, Exs. P1 to P4

were marked and M. Os.l and 2 were filed. The plea of the accused is one of denial.

The learned trial Magistrate accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted the Petitioner herein under Ss.326 and 341, I.P.C. and the

second accused under Ss.341 and 323, I.P.C. On appeal, a petition for compounding of offences was filed and the learned Sessions Judge

acquitted the second accused, as the offences alleged against him and for which he was convicted are compoundable while confirming the

conviction and sentence of Petitioner herein u/s 326, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accepting the compromise, the Petitioner for the

offence u/s 341, I.P.C. Hence this revision.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner did not challenge the conviction on merits; but he confined his arguments only with regard to the sentence.

I have gone through the judgment of the courts below and I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings of the courts below and the

conviction is supported by acceptable evidence. But, according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner herein is none other than

the brother-in-law of the victim P.W.1, namely, the Petitioner has married P.W.l''s sister, and the Petitioner herein, after the judgment passed by

the appellate court, was in custody for nearly 10 days and prior to that also during trial, he would have been in jail for a few days on his being

remanded to custody and taking into consideration that the matter has been compounded and also the relationship between the parties, he may be

dealt with leniently. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied on a decision reported in Ram Pujan and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh

JT 973 S.C.C. (Crl.) 870, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case where the accused were convicted for an offence u/s 326 and

sentenced to four years R.I. thereunder, took into account the fact that the parties have compounded the matter and reduced the sentence to the

period already undergone in addition to a fine of Rs. 1,500, in spite of the fact that the offence is not compoundable. Applying the ratio laid down

in the above decision and also having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also the fact that the parties

have compounded the offence, I feel that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already

undergone and in addition the Petitioner-first accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 inclusive of the fine of Rs. 100 already levied by the

trial court, in default to undergo R.I. for two months. Time for payment of fine 2 months.

With the above modification in sentence, the revision is dismissed.