REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1530  OF 2008 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1681 of 2008]

Manoj & Anr.                                              .....             Appellants

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh                                  .....    Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Manoj and  Bijendra Singh – two brothers have filed this

appeal  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated  11.12.2007

passed in Criminal Appeal No. 631/2000 by the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior whereby and whereunder

1

the conviction of Manoj–appellant No. 1 herein  recorded by

Special Judge (NDPS) and Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior

in  Sessions  Trial  No.  161/99  under  Section  307  read  with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short ‘IPC’] has been

altered to Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment  for  3  years,  whereas  conviction  of  Bijendra

Singh-appellant  No.  2  herein  (as  also  accused  No.2-Ram

Avtar)  from Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC has been

converted to Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC.  Appellant

No.  2 is sentenced  to undergo rigorous imprisonment  for  3

years,  whereas  Ram  Avatar  has  been  ordered  to  undergo

rigorous  imprisonment  for  one  year.   The  conviction  of

appellant No. 1 under Section 25 (1B) (a) read with Section 3

of the Arms Act has been set aside.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that

on  23.01.1999  at  about  10:00  a.m.  complainant  Bahadur

Singh (P.W. 4)  along  with Rakesh (P.W.  2)  and Ram Varan

Singh (P.W. 9) (both hostile witnesses) was excavating sand on

the bank of river Devipura near village Duhia Chak.  Appellant

2

No. 2 armed with 12 bore gun, his brother Appellant No. 1

armed with  katta (country  made  fire-arm) and Ram Avatar-

accused  holding  pharsa in  his  hand  came  to  the  spot  and

started abusing the complainant (P.W. 4).  P.W. 4 told them

that he was extracting sand from government land.  It  was

alleged  that  Ram  Avatar-accused  gave  pharsa blow  which

caused injury to the calf-ankle of complainant’s left leg, back

and knee.  Appellant No. 2 fired gun shot which hit on the

wrist of right hand of the complainant whereas Appellant No.

1 fired pellets from katta which hit the head and forehead of

Bahadur Singh, who as a result of receiving the injuries fell on

the ground.  All the three accused persons thereafter ran away

from the scene of occurrence.

4. Injured Bahadur Singh lodged First Information Report

(Exhibit – P5) on the same day at Police Station, Bijoli.  He was

sent to the hospital for medical examination.  Investigation of

the case was conducted by Assistant Sub-Inspector Babu Ram

Sharma (P.W. 10) on the spot.  During investigation, he seized

one  brass  cartridge  and  recorded  the  statements  of  the

witnesses.   Sub-Inspector  Ashok  Tiwari  (P.W.  14)  arrested

3

Appellant  No.  1 on 08.02.1999 and recorded  his disclosure

statement (Exhibit – P11).  Pursuant thereto, ‘Katta’ which was

being used by him at the time of occurrence of the offence,

was  produced  from  a  hidden  place  at  the  back  of  ‘kothi’

constructed in the field of Majboot Singh Jaat.  Ram Avatar

was arrested on 08.02.1999 and on his statement; pharsa was

recovered from the field of Majboot Singh Jaat.  Pistol allegedly

used by Appellant No. 2 was examined by Santosh Singh (P.W.

11) in D.R.P. Line, Gwalior, who certified that the said pistol

was  in  running  condition  as  per  his  Report  (Exhibit–  P18).

Brij  Mohan  Sharma,  Sub-Divisional  Magistrate  (P.W.  12)

produced on record permission (Exhibit –P19) to prosecute the

accused under the Arms Act.  On receipt of Injury Report and

X-Ray Report prepared by Dr. Purshottam Jaju (P.W. 5) and

Dr.  Avinash  Naidu  (P.W.  6)  and  completion  of  the

investigation,  charge  sheet  was filed  against  the  above  said

three  accused  in  the  Court  of  First  Class  Magistrate.   The

Magistrate  committed  the  trial  of  the  case  to  the  learned

Sessions  Judge.   The  learned  Sessions  Judge  assigned  the

trial of the case to the Special Judge (NDPS) –cum- Additional

4

Sessions Judge, Gwalior.  The accused persons were charge

sheeted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, Section

25(1B) (a) and Section 3 of the Arms Act.  The accused denied

charges and claim to be tried.  

5. During the trial,  prosecution examined as many as 14

witnesses.  The trial court, on analysis of the entire evidence

on  record,  convicted  all  the  three  accused  for  offence

punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.  In

addition, Appellant No. 1 was convicted under Section 25 (1B)

(a) read with Section 3 of the Arms Act.    Appellant No. 1 was

sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  five  years

and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 307 IPC and one

year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence

under Section 25 (1B) (a) read with Section 3 of the Arms Act.

In default of payment of fine, he has been ordered to suffer

three months’ imprisonment.  Appellant No. 2 and Ram Avatar

(Accused  Nos.  3 and 2) were  sentenced to suffer  five years’

rigorous  imprisonment  and fine  of  Rs.  1000/-  each for  the

offence  under  Section  307  read  with  Section  34  IPC.   In

default  of  payment  of  fine,  both  the  accused  persons  were

5

ordered to six months’ imprisonment.  Out of the fine amount,

a  sum of  Rs.  2,000/-  has  been  ordered  to  be  paid  to  the

complainant – P.W. 4.   

6. Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 2 preferred Criminal

appeal  No.  631/2000  whereas  Ram  Avatar  filed  Criminal

Appeal  No.  650/2000  before  the  High  Court  of  Madhya

Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior.  The learned Single Judge of the

High  Court  partly  allowed  the  appeals  and  altered  the

conviction from under Section 307 IPC to Section 324 IPC and

imposed the aforesaid sentence upon them.  The High Court

acquitted Appellant No. 1 in respect of the offence under the

Arms Act.   

7. Now,  Appellant  No.  1 and his  brother  Appellant  No.  2

have filed this appeal by way of special leave.  It appears that

no appeal has been filed by Ram Avatar-accused against the

judgment and order of the High Court.

8. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court

on 10.03.2008,  it was submitted by the learned counsel for

the appellants that the parties had agreed to compound the

6

offence and in that view of the matter, notice was issued to the

respondent-State and also to Bahadur Singh - complainant.

9. The appellants have filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

No.  4257/2008  praying  for  permission  to  compound  the

offence with the complainant.  They have inter alia stated that

they  and  complainant  -  P.W.  4  are  neighbours  and  are

residing in the same village.   After the alleged incident,  the

complainant and the appellants have come into close relations

just like family members and they want to reside peacefully in

future  without  any  kind  of  disruption  in  their  future  life.

Having considered their  close relations amongst themselves,

one  village  panchayat was  held  in  the  village  in  which  the

complainant  has  agreed  to  compound  the  offence  with  the

appellants as now he has no grievance against the appellants.

10. Complainant  Bahadur  Singh  has  filed  an  affidavit

(Annexure–P3) dated 16.01.2008.  The complainant has stated

in  the  said  affidavit  that  on  his  complaint  a  case  was

registered against the appellants Manoj, Bijendra Singh and

accused Ram Avatar which has resulted in the conviction of

the  accused  persons.   He  stated  that  Manoj  and  Bijendra

7

Singh are residents of his village and the village people have

got their disputes compromised by holding a village panchayat

and  now  they  would  desire  to  live  peacefully  and  that  at

present no dispute exists between them.

11. Heard Shri Jai Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the

appellants,  Shri  R.P.  Gupta,  learned  senior  counsel  for

respondent-State  and  Shri  Pramod  Kumar  Yadav  for

complainant-Bahadur  Singh.   The  learned  counsel  for  the

complainant  stated  before  us  that  the  complainant  has

compromised the case with the appellants and in that view of

the matter their appeal may be accepted.   

12. We have examined the provisions of Section 320 of the

Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  [for  short  ‘the  Cr.P.C.’]  which

deals with compounding of offences.  Section 320(1) of the Cr.

P.C.  provides that the offences punishable under the Sections

of Indian Penal Code specified in the first two columns of the

Table  next  following  may  be  compounded  by  the  persons

mentioned  in  the  third  column of  that  Table.   Under  sub-

Section  (2)  of  Section  320,  offences  punishable  under  the

Sections of the Indian Penal Code, specified in the first two

8

columns of the Table next following may, with the permission

of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is

pending,  be  compounded  by  the  persons  mentioned  in  the

third  column  of  that  Table.   Voluntarily  causing  hurt  by

dangerous weapons or means by the accused constitutes an

offence under Section 324 IPC which can be compounded by

person to  whom hurt  is  caused  with the  permission  of  the

Court in terms of sub-Section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C.   

13. It requires to be noticed that Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act,

2005 [Act No.25/2005] amended Section 320 of the Code and

in the Table under sub-Section (2) (a) the words “voluntarily

causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means” in column 1

and the entries relating thereto in columns 2 and 3 has been

omitted.  But the said amendment by Act No. 25 of 2005 has

not yet been brought into force.  Therefore, the offence under

324 is still compoundable with the permission of the Court.  

14. The appellants and the complainant are residents of the

same village and with the intervention of the village panchayat

the  complainant  has  compounded  the  offence  with  the

appellants and now he has no grievance against them.  The

9

appellants  and the complainant  have categorically  stated in

their affidavits filed before us that after the incident they have

developed family relations and they wish to reside peacefully

in the village in future without any kind of disruption in their

future lives.

15. We  are  satisfied  that  the  complainant  has  voluntarily

desired  to  compound  the  offence  with  the  appellants  for

sufficient  and  genuine  reasons  stated  in  their  respective

affidavits and such compounding is legal and valid.   We allow

the parties to compound the offence under Section 324 IPC.

Criminal  Miscellaneous  Petition  No.  4257/2008  stands,

accordingly,  allowed.   In  view  of  the  compounding,  the

conviction and sentence is set aside.  The appellants, who are

in jail undergoing sentence, shall be set free forthwith, if not

required  in  any  other  case.   The  appeal  is  disposed  of

accordingly.

........................................J.                                                 (R. V. Raveendran)

10

........................................J.                                                (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

New Delhi, September 25, 2008.

11