REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1343      OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 3887 OF 2008 MD. ABDUL SUFAN LASKAR & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF ASSAM … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T C.K. THAKKER, J.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is filed against an

order of conviction and sentence recorded by

the  Chief Judicial  Magistrate, Hailakandi  on

September 21, 2002, confirmed by the Sessions

Judge,  Hailakandi  on  May  26,  2003  and  also

confirmed by the High Court of Assam on July

31, 2007.

3. Few  relevant  facts  of  the  case  are

that on June 15, 1995, according to the case of

the prosecution, one Moinul Haque Laskar lodged

a  First  Information  Report  (FIR)  before  the

Officer-in-charge,  Hailakandi  Police  Station.

In the FIR, it was alleged by the informant

complainant that his brother Abdul Haque Laskar

had gone to cultivate land early in the morning

at about 6.30 a.m. Eight accused as mentioned

in the FIR armed with deadly weapons attacked

Abdul Haque Laskar and caused grievous injuries

on different parts of his body. On hearing hue

and cry of the complainant Moinul Haque Laskar

and  his  brothers,  several  persons  arrived

there. The accused persons fled away and the

injured  was  taken  to  hospital.  On  receiving

FIR,  Officer-in-charge  of  Hailakandi  Police

Station registered Case No. 195 of 1995 against

the  accused  for  commission  of  offences

punishable under Sections 147, 325 and 506 of

Indian  Penal  Code  (IPC)  and  started

investigation.  During  the  course  of

2

investigation,  several statements  came to  be

recorded.  The  injured  was  examined  by  the

Medical  Officer  and  a  charge  sheet  was

submitted  for  offences  punishable  under

Sections 147, 323, 326 and 506, IPC against all

the accused.

4. The charge was read over and explained

to the accused who pleaded ‘not guilty’ and

claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order

to prove the case against the accused, examined

five  witnesses including  injured Abdul  Haque

Laskar,  Medical  Officer  and  Investigating

Officer.  The  ‘defence’  did  not  examine  any

witness. In the statement under Section 313 of

the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), the

accused denied the incident and involvement in

any manner whatsoever.

5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Hailakandi vide his judgment and order dated

September  21,  2002,  held  the  case  against

accused  proved for  offences punishable  under

3

Sections  147  and  324,  IPC.  On  sentence,

however,  the  learned  Magistrate  noted  that

accused Islam Uddin (accused No.5), Sahab Uddin

(accused No.6), Aftab Uddin (accused No.3) and

Fakar  Uddin  (accused  No.2)  were  young.  He,

therefore, thought it fit to grant benefit of

releasing them on admonition since they did not

appear to have committed any offence in past

nor  they  were  involved  in  any  offence.  The

learned Judicial Magistrate, however, convicted

Abdul  Subhan  (accused  No.1),  Abdul  Wahid

(accused No.7), Abdul Kuddus (accused No.8) and

Muslim  Uddin  (accused  No.4)  for  offences

punishable under Sections 147 and 324, IPC. For

an offence punishable under Section 147, IPC,

the learned Magistrate ordered the abovestated

accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one

month and a fine of Rs.100 each, in default,

simple  imprisonment  for  five  days.  For  the

offence punishable under Section 324, IPC, he

ordered them to undergo simple imprisonment for

two  months  and  a  fine  of  Rs.200/-  each,  in

4

default, simple imprisonment for ten days. The

sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

6. Being  aggrieved  by  the  order  of

conviction  and  sentence,  all  the  accused

preferred Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2002. The

learned  Sessions  Judge  upheld  the  order  of

conviction as well as sentence and dismissed

the appeal.

7. The four accused who were ordered to

undergo  substantive  sentence,  then  preferred

Criminal Revision No. 331 of 2003. The High

Court,  by  the  impugned  order,  dismissed  the

revision holding that no illegality could be

said to have been committed by both the Courts

below.  The  said  order  is  challenged  in  the

present appeal.

8. On April 1, 2008, the Hon’ble Chamber

Judge  granted  the  prayer  for  exemption  from

surrendering in view of short sentence imposed

on the appellants. The matter was then placed

before the Court for admission hearing on April

28, 2008. On that day, it was stated by the

5

learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  that  the

parties had entered into an amicable settlement

and though the offence punishable under Section

324, IPC has now been made non-compoundable, at

the time when the offence was committed, it was

compoundable. The Court, in view of the above

statement,  issued  notices  by  making  them

returnable early. Notice was also ordered to be

issued to injured Abdul Haque Laskar. Notices

were accordingly served on respondents.   

9. We have heard learned counsel for the

parties.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants

submitted that the parties have compromised the

matter,  entered  into  settlement  and  an

application  is  made  to  that  effect  praying

therein  that  compounding  may  be  ordered  for

offences punishable under Sections 147 and 324,

IPC and an appropriate order in accordance with

law  may  be  passed.  Compromise  deed  is  also

placed on record signed by the parties wherein

it is expressly stated that the injured Abdul

6

Haque Laskar has voluntarily given his consent

without  any  force,  threat,  coercion,  undue

influence,  pressure  etc.,  from  any  quarter

whatsoever  for  making  the  joint  compromise

petition  before  this  Court.  A  prayer  is,

therefore, made by all the parties to compound

the offence and acquit the three appellants who

have approached this Court.

11. Now  it  is  no  doubt  true  that  every

crime is considered to be an offence against

the society as a whole and not only against an

individual even though an individual might have

suffered thereby. It is, therefore, the duty of

the State to take appropriate action against

the offender. It is equally the duty of a Court

of  law  administrating  criminal  justice  to

punish a criminal.  

12. But there are offences and offences.

Certain  offences  are  very  serious  in  which

compromise  or settlement  is not  permissible.

7

Some other offences, on the other hand, are not

so serious and the law may allow the parties to

settle them by entering into a compromise. The

compounding of an offence signifies that the

person  against  whom  an  offence  has  been

committed has received some gratification to an

act as an inducement for his abstaining from

proceeding  further  with  the  case  [Vinjay

Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Sewa Sahkari Bank Ltd.,

(2008) 2 SCC 305].

13.   So  far  as  the  Code  is  concerned,

Section  320  deals  with  offences  which  are

compoundable, either by the parties without the

leave of the Court or by the parties but only

with the leave of the Court. Sub-section (1) of

Section 320 enumerates the offences which are

compoundable without the leave of the Court,

while  sub-section  (2)  of  the  said  section

specifies the offences which are compoundable

with the leave of the Court. Sub-section (9) of

Section  320  declares;  "No  offence  shall  be

8

compounded except as provided by this section".

It is thus clear that offences not referred to

in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 320 and

not included in the Table are not compoundable.

Similarly, offences punishable under laws other

than  the  Indian  Penal  Code  also  cannot  be

compounded.

14. Sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the

Code  expressly  enacts  that  where  the

composition of an offence under this section is

recorded by the Court, it shall have effect of

an  acquittal  of  the  accused  with  whom  the

offence has been compounded.

15. Under the Code, as originally enacted

in 1973, an offence punishable under Section

324, IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous

weapons or means) was made compoundable with

the leave of the Court. The said entry read as

under:

9

TABLE

Offence Section of the Indian Penal Code Applicable

Person by whom offence may be compounded

1 2 3 Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

324 The person to whom hurt is caused.

16. It is no doubt true as stated by the

learned counsel for the appellants even at the

time of preliminary hearing of this matter that

by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment)

Act, 2005 (Act 25 of 2005) the above entry has

been deleted. In other words, an offence of

voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons

or means punishable under Section 324, IPC is

no more compoundable. The Amendment Act of 2005

came into force from June 23, 2006.  

17. As we have already noted, according to

the prosecution, the appellants had committed

10

the offence on June 15, 1995. In view of the

above fact, in our opinion, Act 25 of 2005 has

no application to the facts of the case. We,

therefore, see no ground to refuse permission

as sought by the parties who have compromised

the offence which was compoundable under the

Code  as  it  stood  in  1995.  If  it  is  so,

compounding  can  be  permitted  and  accused

(appellants) can be acquitted.

18. For  the  foregoing  reasons,  in  our

opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed and

is accordingly allowed by holding that since

the matter has been compounded by compromise

between the parties and there is no illegality

therein, such compounding can be permitted by

the Court. The appellants are, hence, entitled

to acquittal.

19. The order of conviction and sentence

recorded by all Courts is hereby set aside and

11

the appellants are ordered to be acquitted of

the charges levelled against them.

…………………………………………………J. (C.K. THAKKER)

NEW DELHI, …………………………………………………J. AUGUST 25, 2008. (DALVEER BHANDARI)

12