Gheesa Ram vs State Of Haryana And Another

,,

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J",,

The present appeal has arisen from the order dated 22.11.2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide which appellant-Gheesa Ram",,

has been convicted. In the present case, FIR No. 84 dated 27.8.2009 was registered under Sections 323, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860",,

('IPC' for short) at Police Station Rajound.,,

Brief facts of the present case are that on 25.8.2009, complainant Sheo Singh got recorded his statement with the police that on 23.8.2009, a dispute",,

took place between a woman of village Narwal and Raghbir Singh, an employee of Water Supply Department as Anil, Pardeep and Goldy were",,

pressurizing Raghbir Singh to start the water supply, Raghbir avoided them and called his family members over telephone. On the other hand, Anil and",,

others called a large number of persons from Sainsi community. Apprehending the danger, Anil, Pardeep and Goldy raised alarm, upon which some",,

persons from Rajput community came there and a clash between the Rajput and Sainsi communities took place. Resultantly, persons from both the",,

sides sustained minor injuries. Rajput community approached SHO Police Station, Rajound, where accused-appellant Gheesa Ram, Sub Inspector, was",,

present to whom a request was made to take action but the accused-appellant detained Anil, Jaibir, Krishan, Dalip, Kuldeep and Pardeep in the police",,

station. On receipt of information regarding the dispute in the village and detention of young boys in police station, the Superintendent of Police and",,

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal, along with other staff came at village Narwal, a meeting was held between the two communities in the",,

Government School, Narwal on 24.8.2009 and the matter was resolved. Superintendent of Police and Sub Divisional Magistrate directed appellant",,

Gheesa Ram to release the above six persons of Rajput community. Complainant Sheo Singh and Narinder also requested the appellant to release said,,

six persons from the illegal custody but the appellant started abusing them as also the other members of Rajput community. After sometime the,,

complainant heard hue and cry and when he entered into the police station, found that the above said six boys were lying in a naked condition on the",,

floor and the appellant was giving them beatings with a strap. In the meantime, Narender and Suresh Devi (mother of one of the six boys, namely,",,

Jaibir) reached there. Suresh Devi asked the appellant as to why he was beating them. On this the appellant warned her either to leave the police,,

station or she would be stripped naked. When Suresh Devi did not leave, the accused-appellant kicked her abdomen and then he sat on the driver seat",,

of the gypsy, parked in the police station. Suresh Devi again requested the appellant not to leave the police station before releasing the boys. She",,

caught hold of the window of the gypsy from driver side. The appellant suddenly started gypsy and dragged her to some distance, due to which, she",,

fell down and the appellant deliberately ran the gypsy over her. Suresh Devi succumbed to the injuries and the appellant fled away, leaving the vehicle",,

there.,,

On hearing about the death of Suresh Devi, villagers reached there and the dead body was taken to the hospital. Accordingly, the present FIR was",,

registered against the appellant.,,

It is the case of the complainant that on the basis of post-mortem report of Suresh Devi, initially the FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC but",,

final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 342 and 506 IPC only and the same",,

was presented in the Court and the offence under Section 302 IPC was deleted by the police.,,

In the present case, challan against the appellant stood committed to the Court of Sessions on 10.12.2013.",,

As Section 302 IPC was deleted, complainant Sheo Singh filed a complaint dated 2.2.2010 against the appellant and vide order dated 24.4.2014, the",,

complaint and FIR case were ordered to be heard together.,,

Vide order dated 24.4.2014, the appellant was charge sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 342, 506, 304 IPC.",,

After taking into consideration the evidence on record and the criminal complaint preferred by Sheo Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal,",,

vide order dated 22.11.2016, while acquitting the accused of the charges under Sections 304 and 506 IPC, convicted the appellant for the commission",,

of offence punishable under Sections 323 and 342 IPC and vide order dated 28.11.2016 sentenced him as under:-,,

323 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 323 IPC. In default of payment of,,

fine he will further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.,,

342 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 342 IPC. In default of payment of,,

fine he will further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 days.,,

Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.",,

An application bearing CRM No. 3160 of 2019 has been filed by the appellant for compounding the offence on the ground that during the pendency of,,

the present appeal, the matter stands compromised between the parties on 5.12.2018.",,

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the matter has been compromised between the parties and the",,

offences for which the appellant was convicted are compoundable. It is prayed that in view of the compromise, the conviction and sentence may be",,

set aside. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Khursheed and another versus State of U.P. And another,,

2007(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 495 where the compounding of the offence was allowed and the appellant was acquitted of the charges framed against,,

him. It was observed by the Apex Court that ends of justice would be met if permission for an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC read with,,

Section 34 IPC, as required by sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is granted. It may be noticed that the compounding of offence was allowed on",,

the basis of the compromise effected between the parties during the pendency of the SLP before the Supreme Court.,,

The Hon'ble Apex Court has also drawn a conclusion in the said case that as per sub-section (8) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. compounding under this,,

Section shall have an effect of acquittal of the accused. The resultant effect of compounding of offences would be that the accused should be,,

acquitted.,,

Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case Ram Lal versus State of Jammu and Kashmir 2000 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 9.2 In the said,,

case, the appellant was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for two years. However, the offence under Section 324 IPC",,

was compounded and conviction and sentence was set aside during the pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court.,,

The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a case Sube Singh and another versus State of Haryana and another 2014(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 has,,

observed that the inherent powers exercised by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis of,,

compromise between the offender and the victim of crime in a case which is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C, has since been considered",,

Offence,"Section of the Indian

Penal Code applicable","Person by whomoffence

may be compounded

x x x,x x x x,x x x x x x

Voluntarily

causing hurt",323,"The person to whom the

hurt is caused.

x x x,x x x x,x x x x x x

Wrongfully

restraining or

confining any

person",342,"The person restrained or

confined.

x x x,x x x x,x x x x x x

Resultantly, the effect of compounding of offence would be that the accused should be acquitted. In other words, once the offence has been",,

compounded and the requisite permission is granted by the Court, the accused must be acquitted.",,

It needs to be emphasised that exercise of inherent powers by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It,,

is neither permissible nor proper for the Court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the compounding of the offence during the pendency of,,

appeal nor any precise and inflexible guidelines can be provided in this regard.,,

Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of the,,

offence(s). These are different and not interchangeable.,,

Thus, according to this Court, the power of compounding of offence given to the Court falls under the mandate of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The Court is",,

guided solely and squarely whereby as per the material on record, whether ends of justice would be justified to exercise of the power, although the",,

ultimate consequence may be acquittal.,,

No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of",,

society and yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. If the present permission is not taken",,

into consideration, then there shall be causality and ends of justice shall be defeated.",,

Accordingly, CRM No. 3160 of 2019 for seeking permission to compound the offence, is allowed. The appeal i.e. CRA-S-4540-SB of 2016 is also",,

allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction dated 22.11.2016 and order of sentence dated 28.11.2016 passed by the Court below are set aside",,

and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.,,