Jalaluddin Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 487 of
2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 487 of
2000)
Petitioner: Jalaluddin
Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 487 of
2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 487 of
2000)
Judges: S. SAGHIR AHMAD & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 04, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 320 – Compounding – Offence under Section 326 IPC – Accused and injured close relatives. Held that it is not permissible to compound. However, being close relatives, sentence reduced to period already undergone.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 320 – Compounding – Offence under Section 326 IPC – Accused and injured close relatives. Held that it is not permissible to compound. However, being close relatives, sentence reduced to period already undergone.
(Paras 4, 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant was armed with a ‘chhura’ (knife) with which he gave a blow on Tengari, the father of the complainant, as a result of which his nose-bone was fractured. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and his conviction has been maintained throughout. He has been sentenced to undergo 18 months’ rigorous imprisonment.
4. Before us an application for compounding of offence under Section 320 Cr. P.C. has been filed in which it has been stated that the complainant and the appellant are close relatives and have compromised the dispute outside the Court. It is prayed that the offence may be permitted to be compounded. The offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable and it cannot be compounded. The application for compounding is, therefore, rejected.
5. However, having regard to the facts of this case that the occurrence had taken place on 24.12.1979 on a trivial issue and that complainant and the accused are close relatives who are now living amicably, we reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The appellant shall be set at
liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant was armed with a ‘chhura’ (knife) with which he gave a blow on Tengari, the father of the complainant, as a result of which his nose-bone was fractured. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and his conviction has been maintained throughout. He has been sentenced to undergo 18 months’ rigorous imprisonment.
4. Before us an application for compounding of offence under Section 320 Cr. P.C. has been filed in which it has been stated that the complainant and the appellant are close relatives and have compromised the dispute outside the Court. It is prayed that the offence may be permitted to be compounded. The offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable and it cannot be compounded. The application for compounding is, therefore, rejected.
5. However, having regard to the facts of this case that the occurrence had taken place on 24.12.1979 on a trivial issue and that complainant and the accused are close relatives who are now living amicably, we reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The appellant shall be set at
liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
