This court allowed a criminal appeal against conviction for offences under IPC including Section 326. It set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants based on a compromise between the parties, invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
Conviction and sentences set aside; appellants acquitted under Section 386(b)(i) CrPC; fine refunded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1942
CRL.A.No.27 OF 2008
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC NO. 561/2006 DATED 07-12-2007 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-I), ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
1 VARGHESE S/O CHERIYA,KAKKADAN VEEDU, CHOORAKKADU, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.SATHISAN SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SR.)
Crl.A.No.27 OF 2008 2
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION.
BY T.K. ANANTHAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.No.27 OF 2008 3
JUDGMENT
Appellants are the convicts in S.C.No.561/2006 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc - I ), Ernakulam. On the basis of a final report laid by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnathunadu Police Station in Crime No. 389/2005, charge sheet was laid against the appellants alleging offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 427, 308 read with 149 of the IPC. The case came before the trial court on committal by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery.
his motor cycle, KL-17-7851 with CW2 on the pillion seat, at Choorakodu kara on the Erappampara-Perumbavoor road, about 200 meters away from the house of one Kuzhupilly Ali, the appellants formed into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained PW1, attacked and injured him with knife and sticks, and thereby made attempts against his life; they also caused damage to his motor cycle.
Crl.A.No.27 OF 2008 4
and claimed to be tried. Following the formalities and after evaluating the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 10 and Exts. P1 to P7 documents, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 read with 149 of the IPC and imposed various sentences, the maximum being rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC. Separate sentences were imposed under the other counts also. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants moved this Court under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code').
Crl.A.No.27 OF 2008 5
third appellant was shown no more. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. According to him, the State does not stand on the way of the parties reaching a compromise but he cannot approve the reasoning shown by the PW1, the defacto complainant which runs contrary to the finding reached by the trial court while convicting the appellants. This Court also made clear that since there is a finding based on facts against the appellants, at this stage PW1 cannot be heard to turn around and come before the appellate court with a strange story. Realising the folly, today PW1 filed a fresh affidavit along with Crl.M.A.No.2/2020 stating that he has sustained injuries in the assault made by the appellants, that he may be permitted to delete the averment that he had sustained injuries by a fall from the motor cycle.
Crl.A.No.27 OF 2008 6
According to the counsel, the parties are relatives, now one of the appellants is no more, the parties have reached a settlement after the judgment of the trial court, that it was a private dispute among the appellants and PW1 and there cannot be any objection for the State in compounding the matter. The learned Public Prosecutor has no objection in recording the compromise and acquitting the appellants.
parties are relatives. Now the parties have reached a compromise and PW1, the defacto complainant who is the only injured in the occurrence has come forward and moved this Court for recording the compromise and acquitting the appellants. State also has no objection in recording the compromise. Therefore, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code, the compromise can be taken note of by this Court. The court also notice the fact that the case was the outcome of a private and personal dispute
Crl.A.No.27 OF 2008 7
between PW1 on one hand and the appellants on the other and serious stakes are not involved. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Popular Muthiah v. State [(2006) 7 SCC 296] , while exercising appellate jurisdiction the Court can suo motu exercise inherent powers to do complete justice between the parties.
Having regard to the circumstances, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code, the compromise is recorded and conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants are set aside. Appellants are acquitted under Section 386(b)(i) of the Code. Bail bonds are cancelled. Fine amount, if any, realised shall be refunded.
SD/-
K.HARIPAL
JUDGE
DCS/23.10.2020
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to record a compromise and acquit appellants despite the offences being non-compoundable under Section 320.
Whether this Court can set aside conviction and sentences when parties have reached a compromise and State has no objection.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and AnotherReferred¶32
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)]
Popular Muthiah v. StateReferred¶38
Popular Muthiah v. State [(2006) 7 SCC 296] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Varghese S/o Cheriya
VargheSE S/o Varkey Madathumpady
George S/o Cherian
Elias S/o Cherian
Baby S/o Paulose
James S/o Elias
K. HARIPAL
S. MARICEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
