Vilvamani vs State

This Criminal Revision is directed as against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Vellore in C.A. No. 58 of 1994 dated

30.4.1997 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Vellore in S. G. No. 215 of 1993 dated

30.6.1994, convicting the Revision Petitioner/accused for an offence u/s 326 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo RI for 5 years for the

offence u/s 326 of I.P.C.

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner/accused on 12.12.1991 at about 9.00 P.M. at Netteri village in the house of the

petitioner/accused with the intention of committing the murder of his wife viz., P.W. 1 Lakshmi, pulled his wife Lakshmi into the house and poured

kerosene on her and lit fire on her from the chimini light and caused 60% burn injuries to her and thereby the Revision Petitioner/accused

committed an offence punishable u/s 307 of I.P.C.

On the side of the prosecution 10 witnesses were examined and Exhibits 1 to 8 were marked and M.Os. 1 to 6 were also marked on the side

of the prosecution.

After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Vellore came to the conclusion that the

prosecution has failed to prove the case as against the accused that the Revision petitioner/accused poured kerosene on P.W.1 Lakshmi with the

intention to kill her, and so only an offence u/s 326 of I.P.C. has been made out, and accordingly he found the Revision Petitioner/accused guilty

u/s 326 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo RI for 5 years.

Aggrieved against the said findings, the Revision Petitioner/accused has preferred an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge at

Vellore in C.A.No.58 of 1994, who also came to the same conclusion that the Revision Petitioner/accused is guilty of the offence u/s 326 I.P.C

and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge viz., the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Vellore in S.C.No.215 of

1993 dated 30.6.1994. Aggrieved against the said findings of the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Vellore, the Revision Petitioner/accused has

preferred this Criminal Revision before the High Court.

After the filing of this Criminal Revision petition, the Revision petitioner/accused filed two petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos. 4839 of 1998 and

4840/1998 one u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. to compound the offence u/s 326 of I.P.C. with the complainant Lakshmi and take additional evidence in

respect of the compromise arrived at between the complainant and the Revision Petitioner/accused.

After hearing the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the learned Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of the State, the point that arises for determination in this Criminal Revision Petition as well as the Criminal Miscellaneous

Petitions is that as to whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and if so, what is the sentence to be imposed on the

Revision Petitioner/accused.

Point:- It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.12.1981 at about 9.00 p.m at Netteri Village, the Revision petitioner/accused poured

kerosene on the complainant examined as P.W. 1 Lakshmi, who is his wife, and thereby P.W. 1 Lakshmi suffered grievous injuries and so the

Revision Petitioner/accused is liable to be convicted u/s 307 of I.P.C.

On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence both the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that

there was no intention to kill the complainant by the Revision petitioner/accused in this case and so the Revision petitioner/accused was convicted

for an offence u/s 326 of I.P.C.

Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence u/s 326 of I.P.C. the Revision petitioner/accused has come up in Criminal Revision before the

High Court.

The learned counsel for the Revision petitioner/accused contended that subsequent to the filing of this Criminal Revision petition both the

accused and his wife P.W. 1 lakshmi, who is the complainant in this case, have settled their disputes and they have compromised the matter on the

advice of the elders in their family, and they wanted to live amicably, and so permission must be given to compound the offence u/s 326 of I.P.C.

and to take additional evidence on the side of the accused. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the learned Public Prosecutor, did

not dispute the compromise arrived at between the accused and his wife P.W. 1 Lakshmi nor the prosecution has chosen to file any counter to the

applications filed by the accused to compound the offence and to take additional evidence as prayed for by the Revision Petitioner. The learned

counsel for Revision petitioner did not argue the case on merits. The learned counsel for the Revision petitioner has further stated that the Revision

petitioner/accused was in jail for 35 days for the offence under Sections 326 of I.P.C. and in view of the compromise arrived at between him and

his wife, the complainant examined as P.W. 1 Lakshmi in this case, the Revision Petitioner/accused need not be sent to jail, again. In support of the

contention of the Revision petitioner, his counsel has also brought to my notice two decisions of the Madras High Court in 1988 Law Weekly

Criminal 31 and Krishnan v. State Represented by S.I. of Police Kandali Police Station,. 1992 (I) M.W.N148.

In the decision reported in Dakshinamoorthy In Re 1988 L.W 31 His Lordship Justice Mrs. Pandmini Jesudurai, J held that the offence u/s

304 of I.P.C. being not compoundable a compromise arrived at between the complainant and the accused could be taken into account in

determining the quantum of sentence.

In the other decision reported in Krishnan v. State Represented by S.I. of Police Kandali Police Station,. 1992 (1) M.W.N148 His Lordship

Mr. Justice Prathap Singh, J even went to the extent of stating that a direction can be issued to the trial Court to accord permission to compound

the offence u/s 307 of I.P.C. after being satisfied with the compromises arrived at.

Whatever it may be, the offence u/s 326 of I.P.C. in the present case is not at all compoundable. However under exactly similar circumstances

the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Rampujan v. State of Uttar pradesh, 1973 Cri. L. J. 1642 laid down that the compromise arrived at

between the complainant and the accused would be a circumstance in determining the quantum of sentence. In the above case also the conviction

was one for the offence u/s 326 of I.P.C. like the present case and the offence u/s 326 of I.P.C. is non-compoundable offence. When the

application for compounding the offence u/s 326 of I.P.C. was filed, the Supreme Court in the above decision held that since the parties belonged

to one family and since they settled their disputes, it was not necessary to keep the accused in prison for any longer period. Laying down the above

principle, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.

It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner/accused that in the instant case the accused had already been in

prison for 35 days and this was not disputed on the side of the prosecution. The complainant examined as P.W. 1 Lakshmi is none other than the

wife of the Revision petitioner/accused and she has filed an affidavit in support of the application to compound the offence in Crl.M.P.No.4838/98

by stating that on the advice of the elders she settled her differences with her husband and for the past eight months, there has been no acrimony

between them and unless the conviction as against her husband is set aside, she is unable to live with her husband, and even now she is willing to

join with her husband and bury their differences, and therefore this court may grant permission to compound the offence as the complainant is

depending on her husband to eke out her livelihood. To the same effect the Revision Petitioner/accused has also filed an affidavit in support of the

application to compound the offence u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. In as much as the accused and his wife the complainant, have settled their differences and

they wanted to live amicably. hereafter, I feel that the Revision Petitioner/accused need not be sent to prison. So the conviction of the Revision

Petitioner/accused for the offence u/s 326 of I.P.C., in my view, must be confirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment imposed for a period of 5

years Rl by the trial Court and later confirmed by the lower appellate court is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the

Revision petitioner/accused. Hence I hold that this Criminal Revision Petition has to be allowed in part, and the Judgment of conviction passed by

the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Vellore in S.C.No. 215 of 1993 dated 30.6.1994, which was confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions

Judge at Vellore in C.A.No.58 of 1994 dated 30.4.1997 has to be confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment for a period of 5 year Rl imposed

by the trial Judge has to be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the Revision Petitioner/accused herein, and the sentence

of imprisonment has to be modified accordingly, and the applications filed by the Revision Petitioner/accused to compound the offence and to take

additional evidence in Crl.M.P. Nos.4839 and 4840 of 1998 are to be dismissed, and I answer this point accordingly.

In the result Criminal Revision is allowed in part. The judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Vellore in S.C. No. 215/83 dated

30.6.94 convicting the Revision Petitioner/accused for the offence u/s 326 of I.P.C., which was later confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions

Judge at Vellore in C.A. No. 58 of 1994 dated 30.4.1997, is confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment for a period of 5 years RI imposed by

the trial Court and later confirmed by the lower appellate Court for the offence u/s 326 of I.P.C. is reduced to the period of imprisonment already

undergone by the Revision Petitioner/accused, and the sentence is modified accordingly.

Consequently the applications filed by the Revision Petitioner/accused in Crl.M.P.Nos. 4839 and 4840 of 1998 to compound the offence and

to take additional evidence respectively are dismissed.