THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
I.A. No.3 of 2021 in Crl.A. No.1224 of 2015
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1224 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant-accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.12.2015 passed in S.C. No.217 of 2013 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, convicting him for the offence under Section 354 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, before Amendment Act, 2013.
2. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant- accused and the respondent-complainant settled the dispute amicably and filed I.A No.3 of 2021 seeking permission to compromise the matter and to compound the offence by recording the said compromise and to acquit the accused. The parties have filed a joint memo of compromise along with I.A. No.3 of 2021 Dr.GRR,J Crl.A.No.1224 of 2015 2 stating that the appellant-accused and the respondent-complainant settled the dispute between them amicably. The said memo is placed on record.
3. When the matter is called, the appellant-accused and the respondent-complainant appeared before the court. They are identified by their respective counsel. In proof of their identity, they filed photostat copies of their Aadhar cards and produced the originals before the court.
4. As seen from the record, the accused is charged for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, but was convicted for the offence under Section 354 IPC, and he was acquitted for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. The allegation against the accused was that when the victim, a minor girl, aged about 8 years was proceeding to Arabic tuition along with her sister, the accused called her by showing chocolate and when she went inside the house, took her to his bed room and on her hue and cry, the accused beat her and consequently victim came out and informed the same to the tuition teacher and he inturn Dr.GRR,J Crl.A.No.1224 of 2015 3 informed the same to the father of the victim i.e. the complainant herein.
5. Now the complainant stated that the girl was aged 18 years and she was in Saudi Arabia pursuing her studies and they were intending to compound the case with the accused and that his daughter also was not interested in proceeding with the case, though the accused was convicted by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence under Section 354 IPC was non-compoundable by virtue of the amendment in the year 2013.
7. But, considering that the offence took place on 15.09.2011 i.e. prior to the amendment and the same was compoundable at that time, and the victim and her father are not intending to proceed with the matter, it is considered fit to permit the parties to compromise the matter in terms of the compromise entered into between them.
Dr.GRR,J Crl.A.No.1224 of 2015 4
8. Accordingly, I.A. No.3 of 2021 is allowed. Consequently, Crl.A. No.1224 of 2015 is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 29.12.2015 passed in S.C. No.217 of 2013 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad convicting and sentencing the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC and the appellant-accused is acquitted for the said offence.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J August 23, 2022 KTL